studies on extension of shelf-life of guava ( psidium ... · contains a number of useful plants...

STUDIES ON EXTENSION OF SHELF-LIFE OF GUAVA (Psidium guajava L.) FRUITS AND

VEGETATIVE PROPAGATION OF GUAVA AND DHAMINI (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.)

Thesis submitted to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)

IN

HORTICULTURE

BY

DEEPAK PATEL

DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES, DHARWAD – 580 005

JUNE, 2011

ADVISORY COMMITTEE

DHARWAD (J. C. MATHAD) JUNE, 2011 MAJOR ADVISOR

Approved by : Chairman : ____________________________

(J. C. MATHAD)

Members : 1. __________________________ (A. K. ROKHADE)

2. __________________________ (C. M. NAWALAGATTI)

3. __________________________ (A. S. BYADGI)

C O N T E N T S

Sl. No.

Chapter Particulars

CERTIFICATE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

LIST OF PLATES

LIST OF APPENDIX

1. INTRODUCTION

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Studies on extension of shelf-life of guava (Psidium

guajava L.) fruits

2.2 Studies on vegetative propagation of guava (Psidium

guajava L.) and dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.)

MATERIAL AND METHODS

3.1 Experimental site

3.2 Geographical location of the experimental site

3.3 Climate

3.4 Experimental details

3.

3.5 Statistical analysis

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 4.


guajava L.) fruits



5. DISCUSSION


guajava L.) fruits



6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1. Anon. Anonymous

2. oB Degree brix

3. oC Degree celsius

4. CO2 Carbon dioxide

5. DAS Days after storage

6. g gram

7. GA Gibberelic acid

8. ha Hectare

9. HDPE High density polyethylene

10. IAA Indole acetic acid

11. IBA Indole butyric acid

12. kg Kilogram

13. KMS Potassium metabisulphite

14. l Litre

15. mg Milligram

16. ml Millilitre

17. min Minute

18. NAA Naphthalene acetic acid

19. PLW Physiological loss in weight

20. PHBA Para hydroxy benzoic acid

21. ppm Parts per million

22. O2 Oxygen

23. SI Shrinkage index

24.. t Tonnes

25. TSS Total soluble solids

LIST OF TABLES

Table No.

Title

1. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shrinkage index (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

2. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on physiological loss in weight (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

3. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

4. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on reducing sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

5. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on non-reducing sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

6. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

7. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g of fruit) of guava fruit cv. Sardar

8. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on titratable acidity (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

9. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on sugar : acid ratio of guava fruits cv. Sardar

10. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on colour and appearance of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

11. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on texture of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

12. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

13. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on overall acceptability of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

14. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period shelf-life (days) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure No.

Title

1. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shrinkage index (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

2. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on physiological loss in weight (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

3. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

4. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

5. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g of fruit) of guava fruit cv. Sardar

6. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on titratable acidity (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

7. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on colour and appearance of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

8. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on texture of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

9. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

10. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on overall acceptability of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

LIST OF PLATES

Figure No.

Title

1. Methods of storage of guava fruits

2. General view of poly tunnel

3. Treated guava fruits on the day of harvest

4. Treated guava fruits two days after storage

5. Treated guava fruits four days after storage

6. Treated guava fruits six days after storage

7. Treated guava fruits eight days after storage

8. Treated guava fruits ten days after storage

9. Guava cuttings at the time of planting

10. Guava cuttings one month after planting

11. Dhamini cuttings at the time of planting

12. Dhamini cuttings one month after planting

LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix No.

Title

1. Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year 2010-2011 and the average of 60 years (1950-2009) at Meteorological Observatory, Main Agricultural Research Station, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad

1. INTRODUCTION

Guava (Psidium guajava L., family Myrtaceae) is one of the most delicious and popular fruit crops grown in tropical and subtropical regions of the world. Place of origin of guava is tropical America, the area extending from Mexico to Peru. It is now cultivated in more than 60 countries of the world. It is commercially cultivated in India, Brazil, Mexico, Florida, Hawaii, California, Peru, Egypt, South Africa, Algeria, Columbia, West Indies, China and Malaysia. Guava cultivation in India started from 17

th century. Among different states, guava is

widely cultivated in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. About 50 per cent of area under this fruit is confined to Uttar Pradesh and the district Allahabad possesses reputation of producing the best guava in the country as well as in the world.

Guava is fourth most important fruit in area and production after mango, banana and citrus in India. Guava share 3.3 per cent of area and 3.3 per cent of production of total fruit crops grown throughout India. Guava is 5

th in productivity among different fruit crops grown in

India. Guava is being cultivated in India on 2.04 lakh ha area with an annual production of 22.70 lakh t (Salaria and Salaria, 2010). Uttar Pradesh leads in area and production while Karnataka leads in productivity (21.6 t per ha).

Guava is quite hardy, prolific bearer and highly remunerative even without much care. Guava is an ideal fruit for nutritional security. It is often referred to as “apple of tropics” due to its high nutritive value and diversified use. It is also known as “poor man’s apple” because fruits are sold at a cheaper rate during the season and hence they are within the reach of the common people.

The major components of guava fruits are vitamin ‘C’ (250 mg/100g fresh fruits), carbohydrates (13%) and minerals (calcium 29 mg, phosphorus 10 mg and iron 0.5 mg/100 mg fresh fruits). It is a very rich and cheap source of vitamin C. Guava fruits are rich in pectin content, so extensively used for preparation of jelly. Besides its dietetic value, the fruit is also used in preparing jelly, cheese, butter, paste, juice, juice concentrate, powder, canned slice/shell, nectar, puree, and ice cream (Dhawan et al., 1983; Wilson, 1980; Jauhari, 1970).

Guava fruit is a climacteric fruit. It exhibits a climacteric pattern of respiration and ethylene production. Usually the fruits are harvested at different stage of maturity depending on the situation. After reaching the physiological maturity it ripens fast within 1or 2 days resulting in early senescence of the fruit.

Guava is a highly perishable fruit. The post harvest loss in guava fruits is estimated to be at 3.4-15.1 per cent (Chadha and Pareek, 1993b). Under ambient conditions, fruit keeps well for only 2 to 3 days after harvest. Because of high moisture content and thin and soft skin, guava fruits are subjected to higher rate of transpiration, respiration, ripening and other biological activities even after harvest which deteriorate the quality of the fruits in a short period and finally make them unmarketable. Hence it is necessary to reduce rates of these physico-chemical changes in order to enhance the shelf-life of guava fruits. Although some work has been done within and outside the country to prolong the shelf-life of guava fruits, but the post harvest technology is highly commodity specific and location specific.

Various means of extending the shelf-life of fresh fruits have been experimented and recommended for different kinds of fruits viz. cold storage, skin coating with wax, growth regulator and chemicals treatments, packaging materials, ethylene absorbent. Since, the response of fruits to these treatments vary with different kinds of fruits and the varieties and the local ambient conditions, it may be necessary to find out a suitable technology for extending the shelf-life of guava fruits.

Guava plants can be propagated by several ways such as seeds, cuttings, air layers, grafting. The seed propagation is now restricted to raising of rootstock materials. Although guava is hard-to-root, investigations have indicated that it can be successfully propagated from cuttings under mist. Abdullah et al. (2006) observed that the cuttings of guava gave 60 per cent rooting and 70.9 per cent survival percentage in the non-mist propagator when treated with 4000 ppm IBA.

Dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.) is commonly called Dhama in English, Dhamini in Hindi, Todsal in Kannada, Dhamin in Bengali, Dhanu Vriksha in Sanskrit, Unu in Tamil, Unnan in Malyalam, Cahrachi in Telugu. It is originated in India and belong to family Tiliaceae, which contains a number of useful plants including phalsa (Grewia asiatica L.).

It is commonly found in wet and dry deciduous and semi-evergreen forest of India. It occurs in sub-Himalayan tract from Yamuna to Nepal & throughout the Central and Southern India up to 1200 m above mean sea level. In India it is found in UP, MP, Bihar, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra. In the world it is found in India, Burma, Sri Lanka and Africa.

Best growth of dhamini plants occurs in the presence of Sun light. They are shade tolerant but sensitive to frost. Dhamini is medium to large sized tree. Usually it attains a height of 12 m with trunk diameter of 1.5 m. The leaves of dhamini plant are oblique heart shape.

Leaf fall occurs during the month of March and new younger leaves are produced during month of April.

The flowers of dhamini resemble the true phalsa flowers very much. Flowers are small and yellow in colour and borne on thick axilliary peduncles. Flower buds are oval to oblong. Flowers are produced in April-May.

Fruit is botanically drupe. It is of globose in shape. Its colour changes from green (when immature) to black (when mature). The size of fruit is of pea size with 2 - 4 lobe. Its fruits are edible and have an agreeable acid flavour. Fruits are produced during July-October.

Tree is quick growing and its hard wood is noted for its elasticity, strength and toughness. Its timber is like that of teak but its wood is more strong and elastic than teak. Its bark has antioxidant, antimicrobial and cytotoxic properties and is widely used in traditional Indian medicine to cure pneumonia, bronchitis and urinary infectious disorder. Its timber is used for making furniture, vehicle parts, window, doors, shaft, poles, frames, panels, tool handles, agricultural implements and used as raw material in textile mills. Its timber is also used as a substitute to imported oak for the manufacture of kegs/barrel for maturing of whisky and used as a substitute to imported Hornbeam (Carpinus spp.) for making cotton loom shuttles.

Dhamini is naturally propagated by seeds in the forest and Forest Department also multiply dhamini through seeds. Its seeds have very low viability period and have low germination percentage besides dhamini is cross pollinated and is higly heterozygous plant. Hence, it is necessary to produce true to type dhamini plant of desirable characters and true to type plants can be produced only by vegetative propagation method. Among the vegetative methods known, cutting is the easy and cheap method. So, an attempt is made to propagate the dhamini plant through cuttings.

In order to extend shelf-life of guava fruits and to multiply guava and dhamini through vegetative means, that is by cuttings, the present investigation was undertaken under agro-climatic conditions of Dharwad region of Karnataka with following objectives.

1. To study the effect of packaging and post-harvest treatments on shelf-life of guava fruits

2. To study the effect of packaging and post-harvest treatments on quality of guava fruits

3. To study the influence of different growth regulators and their concentration on rooting of cuttings of guava and dhamini

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Studies on extension of shelf-life of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits

Being living entities, fruits and vegetables in their post-harvest life are dependent on their own stored foods for meeting the energy demands to carry out several physiological and biochemical process such as transpiration, respiration, ripening and others with no significant photosynthetic activity. Thus, fruits and vegetables are perishable commodity, and guava is no exception. Chemical modification of ripening and senescence with a view to increase the shelf-life of fruits has of late, engaged the attention of the researchers.

Scientific method of post-harvest handling of fruits and vegetables not only facilitate proper care of agricultural produce but also help in enhancing the shelf-life of produce. High level of post-harvest losses of horticultural produce in the country points towards the need for proper handling of produce in a scientific manner. Under Indian conditions there is an urgent need to develop suitable techniques for guava fruits intended for fresh fruit markets.

Guava is a highly perishable fruit and the physiological changes in fruits after harvest are continuous till the fruits become unfit for consumption. If the rate of such changes can be reduced to some extent then the shelf-life of guava fruits can be effectively increased and spoilage could be reduced.

A brief review of literature related to extension of shelf-life of fruits by use of different packaging, treatments with waxes and other chemicals compounds is presented in the following pages. The research work done in this aspect on guava fruit alone, is not abundant. Therefore, the literature on other important tropical and sub-tropical fruits has also been reviewed.

2.1.1 Effect of packaging on storage of fruits

Packaging is a vital component of post-harvest management to assemble the produce in convenient units and to protect it from deterioration during handling and marketing. Adequate packaging protects the fruits from physiological, pathological and physical deterioration in the marketing channels and retains their attractiveness. A wide range of packages include gunny bags, woven bamboo baskets, reed and grass stem baskets, wooden cases, earthen pots, corrugated fibre board cartons and rigid plastic crates (Roy, 1900 and Mani et al., 1993).

Anandaswamy et al. (1962) suggested that the package should be able to dissipate heat of respiration, allows for quick diffusion of water vapour, carbon dioxide (CO2) and volatiles and at the same time be dimensionally stable. The retarded respiration and transpiration because of polyethylene package helps to increase shelf-life and retention of quality of fruits (Salunke et al. 1962). Tomkins (1962) recommended the use of perforated polyethylene bags to overcome the toxic effects of excessive CO2 concentration in the sealed polyethylene bags.

Grapes packed in 100 gauge polyethylene film bags with 6 and 12 per cent vents recorded shelf-life of 5 and 4 days respectively as compared to 2 days in unventilated bags when stored under ambient conditions (Anon., 1970).

Habeebunnisa (1971) obtained best result in prolonging the storage life of guava fruits when treated with wax emulsion and packed in polyethylene bags of 100 gauge without vents as compared to those packed in 200 gauge polyethylene bags with 0.2 per cent ventilation.

According to Scott et al. (1971) packaging of banana fruits in sealed polyethylene bags resulted in reduced loss in weight of fruits and delayed the ripening process.

Sadashivam et al. (1972) could store Sathgudi orange up to 21 days in ventilated polyethylene bags as compared to 7 days in case of unpacked fruits. They also reported that organoleptically the Sathgudi orange packed in 100 gauge polyethylene bags with 0.2 per cent vents were found to be best.

In another study, Singh et al. (1976) used different packaging materials to pack guava (cv. Allahabad Safeda) harvested at firm mature stage. They wrapped fruits in tissue paper either loose or in cell pack or placed in wooden boxes or basket each containing 50 fruits. The best results were obtained with the fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bags in wooden boxes.

Jain et al. (1979) reported that ber fruits (cv. Umran) packed in perforated polyethylene bags kept well with least PLW at room temperature. Average organoleptic rating after 8 days of storage was highest for fruits packed in earthenware pots.

Madhava Rao and Ramarao (1979) recorded maximum loss in weight of fruits stored at room temperature (18.4-35.0

oC) as compared to those packed in polyethylene bags.

Umran cultivar of ber fruits packed in perforated polythene bags were retained for 3 weeks with their minimum acceptable organoleptic score. They also revealed a lower loss in fruit weight and size in perforated bags and a better physical appearance was also observed (Jain et al., 1981).

Khedkar et al. (1982) reported that guava fruit packed in 300 gauge polypack had less weight loss, more percentage of pulp and vitamin C, no adverse change in fruit and had a high organoleptic score.

Polyethylene packaging was the highly effective method of checking weight loss. While knowing this fact, Dhoot et al. (1984) kept Sardar guava fruits in polyethylene bags of 150 gauge thickness and 0.05 per cent vents. After 12 days of storage weight loss in polyethylene packaging was 2.21 per cent as against 31.18 per cent in unpacked fruits. Values for TSS, sugars and acidity after 6 days of storage were higher for polyethylene packed fruits than the control.

Mature hard green to slightly yellow fruits of the cv. Allahabad Safeda (winter season crop) packed in low density polyethylene bags and stored at ambient temperature, could be held for 14 days with 75-80 per cent marketable fruits as compared to 40-50 per cent in control (Tandan et al., 1984).

According to Rath and Pattnaik (1989), packaging of limes in polyethylene bags reduced weight loss and increased percentage juice, TSS and ascorbic acid content. The highest percentage of healthy fruits (80%) after 7 days of storage was obtained with 2000 ppm ethrel and packaging in polyethylene.

Saranda (1989) placed the Embul bananas in sealed polyethylene bags (15 x 22 cm.), perforated bags or in open bags and held at ambient temperature (26 ± 3

oC). No peel

colour development was observed after 15 days of storage in sealed bags while fingers in perforated bags showed full peel colour development by 9

th day after storage.

Shivarama Reddy and Thimmaraju (1989) reported that weight loss and spoilage of Alphonso mango cultivar were reduced when fruits were stored in perforated polyethylene bags.

In an experiment to find out suitable container to store ber (cv. Umran) at room temperature, Kore and Sharma (1990) recorded maximum PLW (21%) in fruits stored in wooden boxes and least PLW (9%) in fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bags. The retention of ascorbic acid was significantly higher in perforated polyethylene bags whereas that of TSS, sugars and acid was minimum. In general, shelf of fruits increased in perforated polyethylene bags compared to other methods of storage.

Modified atmosphere (MA) storage condition created by the respiration of banana (cv. Mas) fruits in polyethylene bags prolonged the pre-climacteric life of fruits. However, polyphenol oxidase activity, causing browning was not affected by the presence of high CO2 during storage (Tan and Mohamed, 1990).

Rao and Chundawat (1991) recorded reduced weight loss in banana fruits cv. Lacatan when wrapped in perforated polyethylene film.

Satyan et al. (1992) reported that the storage life of banana was increased by 2 to 3 times (over control) when bunches were held in sealed polyethylene tubes. and increased 3 to 4 times when bunches was packed in polyethylene tubes with ethylene absorbent.

Kariyanna et al. (1993) reported that packaging sapota cv. Kalipatti fruits in polyethylene bag (150 gauge and 1% vent) reduced the physiological loss in weight significantly.

Nikam and Wasker (1995) reported that the untreated sapota fruits could be hardly stored upto five days at room temperature. However, the shelf-life could be extended when packed in polyethylene bag (100 gauge and 12% vents) upto 9 and 15 days at room temperature and in cool chamber storage, respectively.

Rahman et al., (1995) reported that storage life of bananas cv. Apple could be considerably extended by sealing in 100 gauge polyethylene film at 13-14

oC, provided the

film was sufficiently permeable to prevent CO2 level from becoming toxic to the fruits.

Kinnow mandarin packed in sealed bag of 150 gauge polyethylene bag and stored in evaporative cool chamber exhibited less gradual increase in TSS (Kaushal and Thakur, 1996).

According to Sarkar et al. (1997), banana fruits cv. Giant Governor kept in polyethylene packet (300 gauge) exhibited minimum physiological loss in weight and remained marketable upto 28 days storage compared to only eight days under control.

The guava fruits were packed in different packaging materials viz. bamboo basket, corrugated boxes, wooden boxes and high density polyethylene (HDPE) bags under partially vacuum conditions and stored at ambient temperature (30 ± 3

oC) for 12 days. Pratibha and

Suman (2007) found that weight loss and decomposition rate were highest in case of fruits stored in bamboo basket and lowest in case of fruits stored in HDPE bags. From storage point of view, HDPE bags were considered the best packaging material for packing of guava fruits.

Sharma et al. (2007) used polythene bags of different thickness viz. 50, 100 and 150 gauge with and without prior dipping in 2 per cent bael leaf extract. They found that all the polythene packed Kinnow fruits with and without bael leaf extract had less PLW than control even after 77 days of storage.

2.1.2 Effect of skin coating with waxol on storage of fruits

The principle of application of wax emulsion is based on the partial covering of the surface of fruit, thereby reducing their respiration rate which helps extending the shelf-life by maintaining the firmness and delaying ripening. It also imparts an additional shine to the commodity which helps marketability of fruits. Wax emulsion has been used successfully at appropriate concentrations to extend the shelf-life of fruits for a considerable period of time (Sharma et al., 1965).

Srivastava (1962) extended the storage life of guava fruits by treating with a carnauba-paraffin or carnauba-resin wax by 80 per cent at room temperature and by 50 per cent at 8-10

oC. The storage life of unwaxed fruits was increased in atmosphere containing

7.5 or 10 per cent CO2, but a combination of waxing and gas storage did not further extend their storage life. He also found carnauba-paraffin wax as the better of two waxes tested.

A protective coat of 6 per cent wax emulsion containing Benlate at 500 ppm extends the storage life of mandarins at room temperature up to 18 days (Anon., 1970).

Agnihotri and Ram (1971) reported that wax emulsion treatment prlonged the shelf-life of banana by about a week. Waxing of banana fruits was found to reduce the PLW while in non-waxed fruits there was increased loss in weight upto a period of seven days of storage under ambient temperature.

Dalal et al. (1971) reported that use of wax emulsions for extending the shelf-life by 50 to 70 per cent without any detrimental effect on the quality of several fruits and vegetables. They suggested the use of wax emulsion at the concentration of 4 to 6 per cent for mango fruits. According to Garg et al. (1971) organoleptic evaluation of Dashehari mango fruits, stored at room temperature with prepackaging cum waxol treatments scored the highest of 86.6 followed by 77.0, 72.3 and 60.3 under waxol treatment, prepackaging and control respectively indicating the superiority of prepacking of the skin coated fruits over the untreared ones.

Muthuswamy et al. (1971) reported reduced PLW (%) of banana fruits treated with of 6 and 12 per cent wax emulsion. Further they concluded that application of paraffin wax to cut end surface slightly reduced PLW (%).

Garg and Ram (1973) noticed that dipping of mango cv. Lucknow Safeda for 30 to 60 sec. in 6 per cent wax emulsion with 0.4 per cent sodium orthophenyl phenate extended the shelf-life of fruits by three days as compared to the control at 30

oC.

Garg et al. (1976) reported significantly least weight loss in guava fruits (cv. Allahabad Safeda) treated with wax emulsion, being 25.7 and 18.4 per cent after 9 days at room and 21 days at low temperature respectively. Retention of ascorbic acid and acidity was better in waxed fruits as compared to control.

Sheikh et al. (1977) found extended shelf-life of mango fruits by 50 per cent using fungicidal wax emulsion coating.

Pillai and Balakrishnan (1978) showed that W-12 wax emulsion prolonged the storage life by 4 to 5 days in banana cv. Nendran and Dwarf Cavendish.

Bhullar and Farmahan (1980) indicated that treatment of guava fruits with wax emulsion 6 per cent retarded the rate of ripening and prolonged the storage life and guava fruits upto 10 days. During this period it resulted in minimum physiological loss in weight (8.2%) and fruit rot (5.0%).

Jawanda et al. (1980) studied the storage of ber fruits cv. Umran and Sanaur-2 at room temperature. The least storage losses (9.32-9.52 %) in both cultivars were observed in fruits dipped for 30 seconds in W-W-12 wax emulsion and stored in polyethylene bags.

Roy et al. (1980) reported that wax emulsion treatment of mango cv. Langra and Himsagar were most effective in increasing storage life to 10 days as compared to 6 days in control. They also reported that weight loss was highest in control (14-15 %) and it was lowest (4.2-7.3 %) in combined treatment of wax emulsion with Maleic hydrazide.

In a study to extend the shelf-life of kinnow fruits, it was found that the wax emulsion (12%) was the best treatment to minimise the weight loss of fruit. They also found that wax emulsion (6-12 %) with and without 2, 4-D (50-100 ppm) and cycocel (500-1000 ppm) gave better retention of juice during storage. Wax emulsions alone or in combination with 2, 4-D retarded the rate of normal change of TSS (Bhullar et al., 1981).

Dhillon et al. (1981) reported that physiological loss in weight was lowest (3.6%) in case of polythene wrapped LeConte pear fruits.

Wild (1981) observed that Tag wax emulsion reduced the weight loss from 11.5 to 4.3 per cent in Washington Novel oranges stored for 3 weeks.

Passam (1982) recorded increased shelf-life of Graham cv. of mango when treated with 3 per cent wax emulsion of stay-fresh wax at ambient temperature (28-32

oC).

Singh and Chauhan (1982) studied that waxol- 0 - 12 coating with pre-cooling increased shelf-life by 2 days. It also reduced fruit rotting and retained higher sugars. They also found that the activities of pectinase and cellulase were lowest in wax treated guava fruits. Thus the fruit with wax treatment can safely be stored up to 4 days at ambient temperature.

Wax emulsion applied to guava fruits reduced weight loss and produced a surface shine. Yellow skin colour developed normally and respiration rate and ethylene production were not affected (Brown, 1983).

Wild and Scott (1983) could maintain lime fruits, green and marketable for 4 months by treating with wax containing GA plus 2,4-D and storing in controlled atmosphere (1% CO2, 12% O2), with ethylene removed, at 10

oC.

Rao and Chundawat (1986) recorded significantly lower percentage of ripened banana cv. Lacatan fruits treated with waxol (12%) compared to control on the 12

th day of

storage.

Singhrot et al. (1987) tried to enhance shelf-life of Baramasi lemon. They reported that waxol plus captan and waxol alone were found to be best in reducing physiological loss in weight, decay loss and thereby enhance shelf-life upto 35 days.

Banik et al. (1988) confirmed the effect of wax emulsion coating in prolonging the storage of ber fruits. Fruit coated with paraffin wax and then kept at 10 to 12

oC temperature

could be stored well up to 18 days with minimum spoilage and PLW as against 100 per cent spoilage occurred in untreated fruits (held at 28-30

oC and 70-75 % R. H.) on ninth day of

storage. They also observed that fruits coated with 2 per cent paraffin wax emulsion could be retained upto 12 days at room temperature with minimum spoilage.

Karibasappa and Gupta (1988) reported that polythene packaging reduced the weight loss but maximum retention of ascorbic acid was recorded in Benlate plus waxol treated Khasi mandarins fruits after 45 days of storage.

Post harvest treatments with fungicides as well as wax emulsion reduced the per cent weight loss and increased the palatability rating of the fruits of Kinnow mandarin. The palatability rating was maximum in the fruits treated with wax emulsion and the effect increased with its increasing concentration. Fungicides and wax emulsion treatments helped in reduction of fruit rotting during storage (Singh et al., 1988).

Desai et al. (1989) confirmed that the Tal-prolong treated fruits had significantly higher values of alcohol insoluble substances and starch, indicating the ripening process in these banana fruits was retarded significantly followed by those banana treated with Topsin plus wax emulsion, benomyl plus wax emulsion and wax emulsion alone. Wax emulsion was as effective as the Tal-prolong and gave the best result when used in combination with benomyl or Topsin.

Shivaramareddy and Thimmaraju (1989) observed reduction in spoilage and weight loss when mango fruits (cv. Alphonso) were coated with wax emulsion (2, 4 and 6 %) and stored in perforated polyethylene bags. They found the best storage with 6 per cent wax emulsion.

In their investigation, Aworh et al. (1991) found that waxing minimised weight loss in oranges and grape fruits. Over 31 days storage, weight loss in control was 20 per cent compared with 13.8 per cent in waxed fruits.

Patel et al. (1993) reported that 6 and 12 per cent wax emulsions are most effective to delay the ripening process, delay the colour development on guava fruits and extend the shelf-life of fruits. Physiological weight loss was minimum and marketability of fruits was also higher in this treatment.

Baviskar et al. (1995) reported that 6 per cent wax emulsion (W-0-12) treatment coupled with polyethylene bags of 150 gauge with 2 per cent vents and CFB packaging is considered beneficial in extending the shelf-life of ber fruits upto 15 days in cool chamber and 29 days cool store, while at room temperature wax treatment with polyethylene packaging was found beneficial.

Sarkar et al. (1995) concluded that Giant Governor banana could be stored for 14 days after harvest without significant effect on the quality when they were treated with 6 per cent waxol.

Application of edible coating material like sago, arrowroot and waxol at 10 per cent concentration to Annona squamosa L. fruits resulted in increased in shelf-life by 5-8 days when compared to untreated fruits (Jholgiker and Reddy, 2007).

Uniform and healthy fruits of ber (cv. Umran) harvested and treated at golden yellow stage of maturity. Meena et al. (2009) found that the fruits stored in 200 gauge polyethylene bags of 2 per cent vents after treating with edible wax (stafresh) and stored at ambient condition showed minimum weight loss and decay loss and maximum TSS, ascorbic acid and firmness than fruit stored in polyethylene bags without any wax treatment.

The Kinnow fruits were wax coated using Citrashine wax emulsion (shellac based) and subsequently stored under ambient condition. It was found that coating of Kinnow fruits with wax emulsion helped in lowering the rate of physiological loss in weight and rotting (Sharma and Ghuman, 2009).

Experiment was conducted to study the effect of gamma irradiation, growth retardants and coatings (coconut oil, mustard oil and liquid paraffin) on shelf-life of winter guava fruits during storage. The results revealed that the superiority of coconut oil coating over other post harvest treatments. Physiological loss in weight (7.1%), marketable fruits retained over control (86.7%), total soluble solid (16.1%), ascorbic acid (195 mg/100 g pulp) and total sugar (10%) of fruits were positively influenced by coconut oil coating up to 12 days of storage. The treatment was found significantly effective in increasing the post harvest life of fruits for 12 days over control without adversely affecting the fruit quality. Coconut oil coating gave highest consumer acceptability while, maintaining sufficient level of total soluble solids and sugar content in fruits (Pandey et al., 2010).

Guava fruits after coating with candelilla (Euphorbia anticyphilitica) wax were kept for 1, 2, and 3 weeks at low storage temperature (7 and 10 °C and 80-85 % RH). Salinas-Hernandez et al. (2010) reported that the wax coating significantly reduced weight loss in treated guava fruits.

Yadav et al. (2010) treated the Kinnow mandarin fruits, with a number of chemical compounds and packed in 200 gauge polythene bag of 55 x 35 cm size with 30 perforated holes of 30 mm size. They reported that the treatment (8% waxol plus 0.2% captan) found better in terms of lower physiological loss in weight, higher total soluble solids, total sugars (10.78%), reducing sugars (4.84%), non-reducing sugar (5.95%), acidity (0.735%), vitamin C (19.41 mg / 100 g fresh fruit) and β-carotene (6.35 IU / 100 g fresh fruit) contents.

2.1.3 Effect of ethylene absorbent KMnO4 on storage of fruits

Banana fruits packed in polyethylene bag along with KMnO4 increased storage life for at least two weeks (Scott et al., 1968).

Zinca and Brune (1973) found that when bananas were stored in perforated and unforated polyethylene bags, with and without ethylene absorbent in each case, ripening was most markedly delayed by unperforated bags with ethylene absorbent.

Scott and Gandanegara (1974) observed minimum loss in weight and delayed ripening of bananas by using, KMnO4 as ethylene absorbent in polyethylene bag.

According to Scott (1975) vermiculite or cement block soaked in KMnO4 solution removed the ethylene and thus extended storage life of banana fruits.

Larreal and Peres (1978) observed that packed plantains stored at 15oC with an

ethylene absorbent had not ripened even after 16 days after storage, while the fruits without ethylene absorbent started ripening by that time.

Madhava Rao and Ramarao (1979) observed the longest shelf-life of 74 days when Cavendish bananas cv. Robusta, harvested at three fourth maturity, were dipped in wax emulsion and stored in polyethylene bag containing KMnO4 and Ca(OH)2 at controlled temperature and humidity viz., 15

oC and 80-90 per cent R. H.

Use of ethylene absorbents was reported to have prolonged the shelf-life of banana fruits stored in sealed polyethylene bag by delaying the onset of ripening (Parkin and Scott, 1979).

According to Rao and Chundawat (1987), shelf-life of banana was extended by 3.27 days over control and fruit quality was best when vermiculite block soaked in KMnO4 at 100 g/lit were inserted into polyethylene bags.

Sapota fruits kept in polyethylene bag with permanganate silica gel at 10 to 20 oC

could be stored well upto 18 days with minimum spoilage (Banik et al., 1988). They also observed that on the 6

th day of storage, PLW was maximum (6.50%) in fruits under control

and least PLW (1.91%) was observed in fruits kept in polyethylene bag with permanganate silica gel at 10 to 20

oC.

Chattopadhyay (1989) stored mango (cv. Himsagar) fruits in lined wooden boxes with or without KMnO4 soaked paper shavings for upto 14 days after treatment with tap water, cold water or amino-ethoxy-vinyl glycine (10 ppm) solution. He observed minimum physiological weight loss and decay loss in fruits with cold water treatment plus KMnO4 soaked paper shavings.

Ramkrishna and Ramrao (1989) found that sapota fruits kept in polyethylene bag containing vermiculite block soaked in KMnO4 solution had greater firmness at ripening than untreated fruits under ambient condition.

Mature green guava fruits (cv. L-49) were packed in 200 gauge low density polyethylene bags with or without celite-KMnO4 and silica gel-KMnO4 as the ethylene absorbents. The lowest PLW (5.50%) and percentage ripening (50%) and highest percentage of marketable fruits (70%) after 15 days of storage were obtained using celite-KMnO4 as an ethylene absorbent in polyethylene bags. The quality of fruits stored with ethylene absorbents was comparable to those stored without them (Dutta et al., 1991).

Satyan et al. (1992) recorded 3 to 4 fold increase in average storage life of bunches of banana cv. William when they packed in polyethylene tube (0.1 mm thickness) with an ethylene absorbent (100 g vermiculite impregnated with a saturated solution of potassium permanganate).

Mohammed (1993) reported that ‘Lacatan’ and ‘Gros Michel’ bananas packed in low density polyethylene (0.025 mm thick) with ethylene absorbent (KMnO4) and stored at 10, 20 and 30

oC and 65-85 per cent RH scored the highest value for overall acceptability. This also

maintained the firmness and greenness (i.e. retard ripening) and reduced decay.

Patil (1996) observed an extended shelf-life of banana cv. Robusta fruits by two days over control, when ethylene absorbent (KMnO4 on vermiculite block) was inserted in polyethylene bag. Besides retaining higher quality parameters, it helped in recording significant lower PLW and ripening percentage.

Pradeepgouda (1999) reported that the sapota fruits cv. Kalipatti sealed in polythene bag containing paper shreds impregnated with saturated potassium permanganate solution extended the shelf-life by four days in ambient condition and 3 to 6 days in zero energy cool chambers. These fruits also showed lower PLW (2.60%), higher TSS (24.04%), sugar (16.40%) and better organoleptic rating at the end of their storage period.

Fageria et al. (2007) reported that the ber (cv. Umran) fruits treated with KMnO4 (5%) and packed in sealed polyethylene bags recorded highest shelf-life of 9 days, followed by 2.5 per cent KMnO4 plus 2.5 per cent Ca(OH)2 with sealed polyethylene bags (8 days). These treatments extending the ripening period by 4 to 5 days respectively over the control. They also reported the least PLW and spoilage and maximum acidity and ascorbic acid in case of ber fruits treated with KMnO4 (5%) and packed in sealed polyethylene bags.

Pandey and Singh (2007) reported that mango (cv. Lucknow Safeda) fruits treated with 6 per cent KMnO4 solution impregnated into chalk sticks showed decrease PLW and decay loss as pronounced in control. Also, KMnO4 treated fruits were more firm and exhibit lower yellowness index.

2.1.4 Effect of calcium compounds on storage of fruits

Inorganic elements such as calcium have shown to inhibit specific aspect of senescence in various fruit and vegetables. Reduction in respiration rate is associated with increase in calcium level in the tissue, thus extending the shelf life.

Dhillon et al. (1981) reported that the loss in weight of pear fruit cv. LeConte was least (5.4%) in the case of 8 per cent CaCl2-treated fruits followed by 4 per cent CaCl2-treated fruits (7%), 50 ppm GA (8.1%) and 6% CaCl2-treated fruits (8.4%).

Singh et al. (1981) reported that dipping of guava fruits in calcium nitrate (0.5-2.0 %) reduced weight loss, respiration rate and disease occurrence and maintained the edible quality of guava fruits for more than 6 days. Untreated fruits remained in acceptable condition only for three days. They concluded that the treatment with 1 per cent calcium nitrate was the most beneficial in prolonging storage life.

Apples are conventionally treated with calcium chloride to retard post-harvest ripening. In a study, Drake and Spayd (1983) obtained more titratable acidity and ascorbic acid contents in apples fruits, when treated with 3 per cent calcium chloride, than untreated fruits. They also found that calcium chloride treatment did not reduce the processing quality of the fruits.

Amen (1987) dipped Baladi cultivar of guava in a solution of 1 or 2 per cent calcium chloride with or without 2.5 per cent corn flour and stored in perforated polyethylene bags at room temperature for 12 days. He recorded lowest weight and storage losses at the end of storage in fruits treated with 2 per cent calcium chloride plus corn flour. The non treated fruits did not keep beyond 6 days.

Enhancement in storage life of mango cv. Amrapali fruits treated with calcium compounds was reported by Singh et al. (1987). The fruits were stored for 12 days, where the treatment was given as pre harvest spray and 8 days in post harvest dip. Control fruits remained acceptable for 4 days only.

Fifteen days before harvest the guava cv. Allahabad Safeda trees were sprayed with 1 or 2 per cent calcium nitrate, 50 or 100 ppm NAA or GA3 in different combinations. After picking, guava fruits were stored in 200 gauge low-density polyethylene bags and stored at ambient temperature. The least weight loss, the best reduction of respiration and incident of fruit rot and optimum quality for more than 6 days obtained with 1 per cent calcium nitrate plus 100 ppm NAA. Untreated fruits remained in marketable condition for three days only (Singh, 1988).

‘Richard Delicious’ and ‘Jonathan’ apples were treated with 4 per cent aqueous solution of calcium chloride and held at 18 to 20

oC for 12 days. In this experiment Bantash

and Arasimovich (1989) concluded that the exogenous calcium was incorporated into the protopectin molecules in the middle lamella, and retarded hydrolysis during post harvest ripening, thus inhibit fruit softening and extended storability.

Kumar and Chauhan (1990) reported that calcium nitrate alone or in combination with fungicide were effective in reducing physiological loss in weight, decay loss and in maintaining the various quality parameters of Kinnow mandarin fruits. Fruits treated with calcium nitrate 1 per cent combined with 1 per cent of either Bavistin or Roveral could maintain the fruits in acceptable quality upto 98 days of storage, whereas untreated fruits were acceptable upto 56 days of storage.

According to Reddy (1992), post-harvest treatments of guava cv. Allahabad Safeda fruits with 1.5 per cent Ca(NO3)2 resulted in reduced PLW, decreased decay loss and finally maintained firmness and edible quality of the fruits upto 6 days at room temperature.

Two pre harvest spray of 1 per cent Ca(NO3)2 and 0.6 per cent CaCl2 were carried out at 20 days and 10 days before harvest of litchi fruits cv. Bombai. Roychoudhry et al. (1992) reported that fruit quality in terms of TSS, total sugar and reducing sugar content was much better in Ca(NO3)2 sprayed fruits, while TSS : acid and sugar : acid ratio was more with CaCl2

spray as Ca(NO3)2 treatment developed more acidity. They also reported that ascorbic acid content was higher in Ca(NO3)2 treated fruits.

Post-harvest treatment of calcium compounds [Ca(NO3)2 and CaCl2] in guava cv. Sardar did not help in retaining colour but retained higher level of sugar at 3, 6 and 9 days after storage over control fruits (Jagadeesh, 1994).

Packing the William pear fruits in HDPE bags after calcium chloride treatment gave an additive effect in retaining the fruit firmness, registering a minimum loss of 25.8 per cent. PLW was reduced to 3 per cent by packing the fruits in HDPE bags but it increased the rotting percentage. Calcium chloride treatment reduced the rotting to 2 per cent (Masoodi and Mir, 1995).

Laxman Kuknoor (1996) opined that post-harvest dipping of Pairi mango fruits in 2 per cent Ca(NO3)2 recorded significantly higher TSS (14.60%) and total sugar (13.40%) and lower PLW (11.70%) at 16 days after storage compared to other treatments. Even the organoleptic scores were also higher over untreated fruits.

The perforated polythene wrapping and pre-harvest spraying of calcium compounds particularly CaCl2 and Ca(NO3)2 on storage life of fruits was evaluated in mango cv. Amrapali. Perforated polythene wrapping, CaCl2 (1.5%) and Ca(NO3)2 (1.5%) were effective treatments over the control to enhance the storage life of fruits (Singh et al., 1998).

The post-harvest treatment with calcium chloride and calcium nitrate on storage life of aonla cultivar were evaluated. Minimum PLW was recorded in all cultivar in the Ca(NO3)2 treated fruits followed by CaCl2 treated fruits and at the same time significantly more in untreated fruits. The fruits treated with Ca(NO3)2 showed significantly higher ascorbic acid and maximum glucose level followed by CaCl2 treated fruits. Fruits treated with Ca(NO3)2 and CaCl2 showed significantly higher TSS over control. One per cent calcium nitrate solution was most effective post harvest treatment for all the cultivar which helped in increasing the quality of aonla fruits during storage even after 21 days of harvest (Kumar et al., 2005).

Singh et al. (2007), reported that calcium nitrate at lower concentration, i.e., 1.0 per cent prolonged the storage life of guava fruits cv. Allahabad Safeda up to 10 days.

Influence of pre-harvest foliar application of calcium nitrate (0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 %) on quality attributes of winter guava cv. Sardar during different interval of cold storage and post cold storage shelf-life under ambient conditions was investigated. Guava fruits were packed in corrugated fibre board boxes with newspaper lining and stored at 6-8 °C and 90-95 % RH. Fruits treated with 1 per cent Ca(NO3)2 effectively reduced spoilage, maintained higher firmness, total soluble solid and ascorbic acid up to 2 days under ambient conditions, after 30 days of cold storage and remained moderately acceptable up to the 40 days of storage (Goutam et al., 2010).

2.1.5 Effect of chemical preservatives on storage of fruits

Ahlawat et al. (1980) opined that guava fruits cv. Sardar treated with potassium metabisulphite reduced storage loss and gave acceptable fruit quality.

Grapes cv. ‘Perlete’ packed in wooden boxes, card boxes and bamboo baskets with and without potassium metabisulphite (1g/3 kg grapes), spread over paper cuttings in each packing. Potassium metabisulphite was ineffective to reduce PLW and decay loss at initial stages. However, decay loss was reduced by Potassium metabisulphite towards end of storage period (Sharma et al., 1991).

Li et al. (1991) reported that banana fruits remained fresh for 8-18 days longer when treated with complex preservative (containing 1000 ppm thiophenate, 2000 ppm urea, 2000 ppm KH2PO4 and 40 ppm 2,4-D) than fruits treated with thiophenate alone.

2.2 Studies on vegetative propagation of guava (Psidium guajava L.) and dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.).

Propagation is one of the most important operations in horticulture. Scientific propagation is the basis for expansion of area under perennial crops. In ancient times horticultural crops were generally propagated by seeds, but now they are successfully propagated vegetatively. The art of propagation by vegetative methods is gaining popularity in the field of horticulture in recent years. Vegetative propagation methods like cutting, air layering, budding and grafting are being widely used to multiply horticultural plants of desired genetic constitution and maintain their purity for commercial exploitation.

Among the different methods of vegetative propagation, cutting is the easiest, cheapest, simplest, rapid, and widely employed method. Further, growth substances applied exogenously to the cuttings are found to enhance early and good root formation. Many of the horticultural plant species which are found difficult to root, are made to root easy by use of different combination and concentrations of plant growth regulators. The success in multiplication of fruits crops by stem cutting depends upon some factors such as condition of the mother plant, age of the tree, part of the tree from which cuttings are made, time of planting, rainfall, humidity, temperature, rooting media, care while planting and after care (Frey et al., 2006).

Guava (Psidium guajava L.) plants can be propagated by several ways such as seed, air layers, grafting, and cuttings but guava is hard-to-root. The seed propagation was wide spread earlier, is now restricted to raising of rootstock plants. Dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl) is naturally propagated by seeds in the forest. The rooting of cuttings of guava and dhamini depend upon a number of factors such as type of cuttings, age of cuttings, season, different combination and concentrations of plant growth regulators, environmental conditions etc.

Availability of literature on propagation of guava by cuttings is meagre and in case of dhamini is no literature is available because no work has been done to propagate dhamini by cuttings. Hence, available literature pertaining to propagation practices of dhamini and guava as well as other related crops are mentioned under following headings.

2.2.1 Effect of growth regulators on rooting of cuttings

Auxins have been used for many years to promote root initiation in cuttings. Though number of auxins have shown their ability to initiate roots in detached or undetached shoots, only IBA and NAA are more commonly used because of their stability, low mobility in plants and synergistic effect (Proebsting, 1984).

Sharma (1975) reported that there was no rooting of guava in control and all the terminal cuttings died irrespective of the treatment and the time of planting. Maximum number of cuttings rooted with 200 ppm IBA treatments, IBA at lower concentration seems to be more effective than its higher concentration.

Arora and Yamadagni (1985) in their experiment with leafy lemon cuttings found that NAA 2000 ppm gave the best results.

Ghosh et al. (1988) observed that IBA was more effective than NAA for inducing rooting in hard-wood, semi hard-wood and soft-wood pomegranate cuttings. The greatest rooting success was obtained with hard-wood cuttings treated with 5000 ppm IBA.

Somashekhar (1988) observed the highest percentage of rooting in phalsa cuttings which were ringed and subsequently treated with IBA + NAA at 2000 ppm.

Debnath and Maiti (1990) indicated that IBA was most effective in rooting of cuttings of guava followed by IAA and NAA. Among different concentrations IBA at 2500 ppm exhibited the best performance (73.3 - 83.3 % rooting success, 5.28 - 7.16 numbers of primary roots and 101.20 - 112.4 mg dry weight of roots) irrespective of varieties, while IBA at 3500 ppm had a declining effect on the different rooting parameters. NAA had almost the similar response. But the response of IAA to different rooting parameters increased with increased concentration and attained a highest magnitude at 3500 ppm irrespective of season and varieties.

Hore and Sen (1991) recorded maximum rooting success with IBA 2500 ppm in the cuttings of sapota taken during the month of July. However, cuttings treated with 3000 ppm NAA recorded maximum root length.

Tavares et al. (1995) reported that the highest percentage of rooted cuttings (51.52%) treated with IBA was observed in guava cuttings collected in February.

Rajarama (1997) reported that pomegranate cv. Ganesh cuttings treated with combination of IBA and cultar at 2500 ppm gave the highest percentage of rooting, more number of primary roots, maximum average root length, and higher dry weight of roots, higher survival percentage and better shoot parameters.

Bhagat et al. (1998) reported that IBA at 4500 ppm exhibited best performance with respect to rooting success (90.83%) and survival in hard-wood cuttings of guava.

The maximum rooting percentage (62.9%) was obtained in semi-hardwood guava cuttings treated with IBA + catechol at 1000 ppm, followed by cuttings treated with NAA + catechol at 1000 ppm (59.6%) and the lowest rooting percentage (19.8%) was in the untreated cuttings. In general, cuttings treated with IBA in combination with catechol at 500 and 1000 ppm gave the highest number of roots (31.1 and 28.8 roots per cutting, respectively) while the control produced 9.1 roots per cutting. (Al-Obeed, 2000).

Mannan et al. (2000) reported that the percentage of rooted guava cuttings treated with IBA at 1000 ppm was 37 per cent and that in control 17.5 per cent. It was observed that number of roots were more than double in cuttings treated with IBA at 1000 ppm than cuttings treated with IBA at 500 ppm. They also recorded maximum length of roots (26.15 cm) in hard wood cuttings treated with IBA 1000 ppm while it was minimum (2.313 cm) in control treatment.

Abdullah et al. (2006) reported that highest rooting percentage (60%) was observed in the guava cuttings treated with 0.4 per cent IBA solution followed by 0.2 per cent IBA and the lowest was in untreated controll. The highest survival percentage (70.9%) was observed in the cuttings treated with 0.4 per cent IBA and the lowest (58.3%) was in the cuttings without any treatment.

The herbaceous cuttings of guava cv. ‘Paluma’ and ‘Seculo XXI’ obtained in spring and summer seasons, consisting of 10 cm of length, two nodes and a pair of leaves in the superior node, and treated with 0, 500, 1500 and 2000 ppm IBA. Higher rooting percentage was observed in cuttings collected in summer. 1500 and 2000 ppm of IBA were the most appropriate to provide the best rooting characteristics of 'Paluma' and 'Século XXI' herbaceous cuttings, respectively (Zietemann and Roberto, 2007).

Reddy et al., (2008) reported that hard-wood cuttings treated with IBA 2500 ppm + PHBA 2000 ppm recorded highest percentage of rooting, more number of roots per cutting, longest root length per cutting.

Pandey and Bisen (2010) reported that guava cuttings obtained from lower end portion of ringed branch promoted significantly better growth parameters, particularly number of sprout shoots (4.00), shoot length 120 days after planting (28.00 cm), number of leaves (45.66), length and width of leaves (8.03 cm and 3.24 cm) and leaf area index (41.24 cm

2)

when treated with 4000 ppm IBA.

3. MATERIAL AND METHODS The present investigation was carried out at New Orchard, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad from October to February during the year 2010-2011. The details of the material and methods pertaining to the present experiment are furnished in this chapter.

3.1 Experimental site

The experiment was carried out in the laboratory and in the New Orchard of the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

3.2 Geographical location of the experimental site

The College of Agriculture, University of Agriculture Sciences, Dharwad is situated in the agro climatic zone VIII which is the North transitional zone of Karnataka state. Geographically, it is located at 15

o 26' North latitude, 75

o 07' East longitude and at an altitude of 678 m above

mean sea level.

3.3 Climate

The data on weather parameters such as rainfall (mm), mean maximum and minimum temperature (

oC) and relative humidity (%) recorded at Meteorological Observatory, Main

Agricultural Research Station, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during the experimental year (2010 - 2011) and the mean of the last 60 years (1950 - 2009) are presented in Appendix - I.

The rainfall of 952.5 mm was received during the year 2010 - 2011 at Dharwad where as during experimentation period it was 271.6 mm (i.e. from October to February). The mean maximum temperature during the year 2010 - 2011 was 36.0

oC in April where as during

experimentation period it was 32.4oC in February. The mean minimum temperature both

during the year 2010 - 2011 and during experimentation period was 14.1oC in December. The

mean maximum relative humidity during the year 2010 - 2011 was 84.0 per cent in July and August both where as during experimentation period it was 79.0 per cent in November. The mean minimum relative humidity during the year 2010 - 2011 was 49.0 per cent in March and where as during experimentation period it was 50.0 per cent in February.

3.4 Experimental details

3.4.1 Experiment - I

Studies on extension of shelf-life of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits

3.4.1.1 Material

Healthy Sardar (L-49) guava fruits of uniform size, maturity and colour were procured at colour break stage from Saidapur Farm, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad. Immediately the harvested fruits were brought to the laboratory for further study.

3.4.1.2 Methods

The fruits were separated into different lots of eight fruits for each treatment. Four out of eight fruits were marked as 1, 2, 3 and 4 to record physiological loss in weight (PLW) and shrinkage index (SI). Only these marked fruits were used to determine the physiological loss in weight and shrinkage index throughout the storage period. Remaining fruits were used for recording chemical parameters, organoleptic parameters and disease incidence during storage.

Plate 1. Methods of Storage of guava fruits

Palte 2. General view of poly tunnel

3.4.1.3 Design and layout of experiment

The experiment was laid out in factorial completely randomized design (FCRD). There were fifteen treatments with three replications. The investigations were carried out in laboratory.

3.4.1.4 Treatments details

Factor – I : Treatment

T1 - Untreated fruits.

T2 - Untreated fruits stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents.

T3 - Fruits dipped in 17% Nipro wax for 5 minutes.


T5 - Fruits dipped in 17% Citrus wax for 5 minutes.


T7 - Fruits wrapped with tissue paper.

T8 - Fruits dipped in 17% Nipro wax for 5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents.


T10 - Fruits dipped in 17% Citrus wax for 5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents.


T12 - Fruits stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 0.5% vents containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4 solution.

T13 - Fruits dipped in 1% Ca(NO3)2 solution for 5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vent.

T14 - Fruits dipped in 2% CaCl2 solution for 5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents.

T15 - Fruits dipped in 1000 ppm potassium metabisulphite solution for 5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents.

Factor – II : Stage of storage

2 DAS, 4 DAS, 6 DAS, 8 DAS, 10 DAS.

For wax treatment of fruits two types of standard wax emulsions (Nipro and Citrus wax) obtained from Nipro Technology Ltd., Panchkula, Haryana were used. Seventeen per cent wax emulsion was prepared by mixing 170 ml of standard wax emulsion with 830 ml distilled water. To obtain twenty five per cent wax emulsion, 250 ml of standard wax emulsion was mixed with 750 ml distilled water.

Paper shreds, prepared by cutting newspaper, were dipped in saturated solution of KMnO4 and then air dried in room. The paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4 were inserted into the polyethylene bags containing guava fruits.

One per cent Ca(NO3)2 solution was obtained by dissolving 10g of Ca(NO3)2 in one litre of distilled water. Two per cent CaCl2 solution was obtained by dissolving 20g of CaCl2 in one litre of distilled water. 1000 ppm potassium metabisulphite was prepared by dissolving 1g of potassium metabisulphite in one litre of distilled water. The fruits were dipped in respective solutions for different period of time as per the treatments.

At the end of dipping period, fruits were removed from the solution, drained off the excess solution and kept on clean table and immediately dried under an electric fan.

After complete drying, they were placed in polyethylene bags (of 200 gauge thickness) with 0.5 or 1.0 per cent vent area as per treatment. In Treatment 7, untreated fruits were wrapped individually in tissue paper and kept in open condition. Untreated fruits kept in open air without any packaging served as control (T1).

3.4.1.5 Observations recorded

The following observations were recorded at 2 days interval after storage during the course of study.

3.4.1.5.1 Physical parameters

Shrinkage index (SI)

Diameter of fruits was measured by using a vernier calipers at the point on fruits it had maximum diameter. This observation was recorded initially and subsequently at 2 days interval of storage. The reduction in diameter on different days of storage from the initial diameter was calculated and expressed in percentage as Shrinkage index.

Formula used for calculating the Shrinkage index is given below: (D0 – D1) SI = —————— x 100 Do

Where, D0 = Initial diameter

D1 = Diameter at 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 days interval after storage

Physiological loss in weight (PLW)

The initial weight of the marked fruits was recorded on electric top pan balance in each treatment. Thereafter the weight of the marked fruits was recorded at 2 days interval of storage. At regular interval, the cumulative losses in weight were calculated and expressed as per cent physiological loss in weight.

Formula used for calculating the Physiological loss in weight is given below:

(P0 – P1)

PLW = ———————— x 100 P0

Where, P0 = Initial weight

P1 = Weight at 2, 4, 6, 8 or 10 days interval after storage

3.4.1.5.2 Chemical parameters

Five grams of fruit sample obtained from random fruit sample from each treatment was preserved in 85 per cent alcohol for estimation of reducing, non-reducing and total sugars.

Total soluble solids (TSS)

The percentage of TSS was determined with the help of a hand refractometer and expressed in

oBrix.

Reducing sugars

The reducing sugars were calculated using the samples preserved in 85 per cent alcohol as per the Dinitro-Salicylic Acid (DNS) method (Miller, 1972). The value of reducing sugars obtained was expressed as percentage on fresh fruit weight basis.

Total sugars

The total sugars were calculated using the samples preserved in 85% alcohol as in case of reducing sugars after inversion of the non-reducing sugars into reducing sugars using dilute hydrochloric acid (Anon., 1984). The value of total sugars obtained was expressed as percentage on fresh fruit weight basis.

Non-reducing sugars

The value of non-reducing sugars was calculated by following formula and expressed as percentage on fresh fruit weight basis.

Non-reducing sugars (%) = Total sugars (%) – Reducing sugars (%)

Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C)

The ascorbic acid content was estimated titrimetically using 2, 6-dichlorophenol indophenol dye as per modified procedure of A.O.A.C. (Anon., 1960). The value of ascorbic acid obtained was expressed as mg/100 g fresh fruit.

Total titratable acidity

The total titratable acidity was determined in terms of citric acid by titrating against standard NaOH solution as per A.O.A.C. (Anon., 1960). The value of total titratable acidity obtained was expressed in terms of citric acid as percentage on fresh fruit weight basis.

Sugar : acid ratio

Sugar : acid ratio was calculated by dividing the value of total sugars (%) by the respective value of titratable acidity (%) of the particular treatment. This was expressed as absolute value.

3.4.1.5.3 Organoleptic evaluation

A panel of ten experts from Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Dharwad was formed to judge the organoleptic evaluation of the fruits. Two fruits were selected randomly from two replications. Fruits were cut and half portion of each fruit was displayed for organoleptic evaluation at two days interval of storage. Fruit characters like colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overall acceptability were judged by scoring based on 5 point Hedonic scale as per score card given hereunder.

Level of acceptance Score

Highly acceptable 4.1 - 5.0

Acceptable 3.1 – 4.0

Fairly acceptable 2.1 – 3.0

Poorly acceptable 1.1 – 2.0

Not acceptable 0.0 – 1.0

3.4.1.5.4 Shelf-life

The shelf - life of all fruits was calculated in each treatment. Shelf- ife of guava fruits was calculated by considering parameters viz. organoleptic characters, physiological loss in weight, firmness, ripening, wholesomeness and spoilage. Shelf-life of guava fruits was expressed in days.

3.4.2 Experiment - II

Studies on vegetative propagation of guava (Psidium guajava L.) and dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.)

3.4.2.1 Source of cuttings

Soft wood cuttings of guava and dhamini were taken from the trees growing at Old Orchard, Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad and from the trees growing at Belgaum district respectively in the month of January.

3.4.2.2 Preparation of cuttings

25 cm long cuttings having 8 - 10 buds were taken from the soft wood portion of the branches.

3.4.2.3 Preparation of rooting media

Fine sieved sand was used as a rooting media. Before planting, the sand was thoroughly drenched using captan (0.2%). Sand was filled into the earthen pots leaving a gap of about 2 cm from the top.

3.4.2.4 Design and layout of experiment

The experiment was laid out in completely randomized design (CRD). There were ten treatments of growth regulator formulation used in different concentrations and combinations. Ten cuttings were used for each treatment which was replicated thrice. The experiment was conducted in poly tunnel.

3.4.2.5 Treatments details

T1 – Control (dipped in distilled water)

T2 – NAA @ 1000 ppm

T3 – NAA @ 2000 ppm

T4 – NAA @ 3000 ppm

T5 – IBA @ 1000 ppm

T6 – IBA @ 2000 ppm

T7 – IBA @ 3000 ppm

T8 – IBA @ 500 ppm + NAA @ 500 ppm

T9 – IBA @ 1000 ppm + NAA @ 1000 ppm

T10 – IBA @ 1500 ppm + NAA @ 1500 ppm

3.4.2.6 Preparation of growth regulator formulations

A stock solution of 3000 ppm each of NAA and IBA was prepared separately by dissolving 3g in 0.1 NaOH and volume was made upto 1000 ml using distilled water. From this stock solution, different concentrations of NAA and IBA solutions were prepared (250 ml each) by pipetting out the appropriate quantity as noted below:

Treatments Amount of stock

solution pipetted out (ml)

Amount of distilled water

added (ml)

Volume of solution

(ml)

T1 – Control 0.00 250 250

T2 – NAA @ 1000 ppm 83.33 166.67 250

T3 – NAA @ 2000 ppm 166.67 83.33 250

T4 – NAA @ 3000 ppm 250 0.00 250

T5 – IBA @ 1000 ppm 83.33 166.67 250

T6 – IBA @ 2000 ppm 166.67 83.33 250

T7 – IBA @ 3000 ppm 250 0.00 250

T8 – IBA @ 500 ppm + NAA @ 500 ppm

41.67 + 41.67 166.66 250

T9 – IBA @ 1000 ppm + NAA @ 1000 ppm

83.33 + 83.33 83.34 250

T10 – IBA @ 1500 ppm + NAA @ 1500 ppm

125 +125 0.00 250

3.4.2.7 Treatment of cuttings

The basal 1.5 - 2.0 cm portion of the cuttings was dipped in the growth regulators formulation for five minutes. They were taken out, air dried for few seconds and immediately planted in sand medium to a depth of 4.5 - 5.0 cm. After the cuttings were planted, light watering was done.

3.4.2.8 Aftercare of planted cuttings

Watering was done as per requirement, generally at once in a day. The medium was drenched with Carbendazim (0.15%) at fortnightly interval to check the disease incidence. Observations were recorded regarding disease, pest incidence and survival percentage.

3.5 Statistical analysis

The data obtained on physical parameters, chemical parameters (excluding shelf - life) and organoleptic characters were analysed statistically following factorial completely randomized design and shelf - life of fruits was analysed using completely randomized design. Interpretation of the data was carried out in accordance with Panse and Sukhatme (1985). The level of significance used in ‘F’ and ‘t’ test was p=0.01. Critical difference values were calculated wherever ‘F’ test was significant.

4. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS

4.1 Studies on extension of shelf-life of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits

The present investigation was carried out to find out the influence of different post-harvest treatments with chemicals viz., waxol (citrus and nipro wax), potassium permanganate (KMnO4), calcium nitrate (Ca(NO3)2), calcium chloride (CaCl2), potassium metabisulphite (K2S2O5) on physico-chemical changes and keeping quality of guava fruits kept in open, in polyethylene bag or wrapped with tissue paper during storage at ambient conditions. The results of the study are presented in the following pages.

4.1.1 Physical parameters

4.1.1.1 Shrinkage index (%)

The data regarding the shrinkage index (SI) of fruits during storage as influenced by various treatments and storage period are presented in Table 1 and depicted in Fig. 1.

The treatments were found to significantly influence the shrinkage index of fruits throughout the storage period. All the treatments had significantly lower shrinkage index (%) as compared to control on all the days of observation. Irrespective of storage period, it was observed that T1 (8.75%) showed higher mean shrinkage index and T11 (3.00%) showed lower mean shrinkage index.

Irrespective of the treatments, the mean shrinkage index (%) increased progressively with the extension of storage period from 2.13 to 9.33 per cent during storage period of 10 days.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on shrinkage index was also significant at all stages of storage. Among the treatments, maximum shrinkage index (%) was recorded in the fruits kept in open air without any treatments (13.66%) at 10 DAS, where as fruits treated with citrus wax (25%) and stored in polyethylene bag showed minimum shrinkage index (1.06%) at 2 DAS.

Taking into consideration the effect of polyethylene bag and tissue paper, it is evident from the values that fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag, in general, exhibited lower shrinkage index compared to those fruits wrapped with tissue paper.

In case of fruits treated with nipro and citrus wax and stored in polyethylene bag, it was noted that T11 (25% citrus wax) was having significantly lower shrinkage index (%) followed by T10 (17% citrus wax), T9 (25% nipro wax) and T8 (17% nipro wax) on 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

While comparing the fruits treated with different chemical compounds viz., potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite and stored in polyethylene bag, it was found that T12 (KMnO4) was having lower shrinkage index (%) followed by T14 (2% CaCl2), T13 (1% Ca(NO3)2) and T15 (1000 ppm K2S2O5) on 2 DAS. However the T14 recorded lower shrinkage index (3.65, 6.58, 8.58 and 10.66 %) followed by T12, T13 and T15 on 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

As observed from Table 1, the shrinkage index (%) of fruits after 10 DAS indicated that by keeping waxol treated fruits in perforated polyethylene bag, the shrinkage index (%) was minimum followed by the waxol treated fruits kept in open air.

4.1.1.2 Physiological loss in weight (%)

The results of per cent weight loss of guava fruits during storage as influenced by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 2 and depicted in Fig. 2. The treatments and storage period were found to significantly influence the physiological loss in weight (PLW) of fruits throughout the storage period.

Table 1. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shrinkage index (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage

Treatments 2 4 6 8 10 Mean

Initial value 0.00

T1 4.02 6.01 8.99 11.08 13.66 8.75

T2 2.02 3.00 5.01 7.99 10.06 5.62

T3 1.49 2.56 4.56 7.51 9.48 5.12

T4 1.84 2.87 4.83 7.80 9.81 5.43

T5 1.72 2.80 4.69 7.65 9.68 5.31

T6 1.85 2.67 4.79 7.77 9.85 5.38

T7 3.17 4.94 8.04 10.00 11.91 7.61

T8 1.52 2.55 3.49 4.58 5.59 3.55

T9 1.41 2.38 3.39 4.45 5.40 3.41

T10 1.24 2.25 3.22 4.27 5.15 3.22

T11 1.06 1.97 2.99 4.02 4.99 3.00

T12 2.34 3.82 6.76 8.81 10.81 6.51

T13 2.64 3.91 7.00 8.91 10.84 6.66

T14 2.40 3.65 6.58 8.58 10.66 6.37

T15 3.24 5.02 8.01 10.15 12.01 7.69

Mean 2.13 3.36 5.49 7.57 9.33 5.58

For comparing the means of S.Em± C.D. at 1%

Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.08

0.05

0.18

0.29

0.17

0.65

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15

2 DAS 4 DAS 6 DAS 8 DAS 10 DAS

Perc

enta

ge

Treatments













T13 - Fruits dipped in 1% Ca(NO3)2 solution for 5 minute + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vent.



Fig. 1. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shrinkage index (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Fig. 1. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shrinkage index (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Table 2. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on physiological loss in weight (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 0.00

T1 5.94 9.98 16.01 21.18 24.88 15.60

T2 3.01 6.01 11.04 15.14 19.18 10.87

T3 2.51 3.50 5.51 8.51 10.56 6.12

T4 2.79 3.80 5.82 8.81 10.82 6.41

T5 2.71 3.72 5.72 8.67 10.66 6.30

T6 2.81 3.82 5.79 8.79 10.79 6.40

T7 5.00 9.09 15.02 20.06 24.11 14.66

T8 2.52 3.42 4.52 5.52 6.54 4.50

T9 2.40 3.39 4.39 5.39 6.39 4.40

T10 2.21 3.19 4.27 5.20 6.18 4.21

T11 2.04 2.99 3.96 4.98 5.97 3.99

T12 3.33 6.79 11.78 15.80 19.83 11.51

T13 3.59 6.99 11.91 15.95 19.96 11.68

T14 3.39 6.60 11.58 15.66 19.63 11.37

T15 5.14 9.19 15.27 21.17 24.19 14.99

Mean 3.29 5.50 8.84 12.06 14.65 8.87


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.08

0.05

0.18

0.30

0.17

0.68

0

5

10

15

20

25



Perc

enta

ge

Treatments
















Fig. 2. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on physiological loss in weight (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Fig. 2. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on physiological loss in weight (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

The treatments were found to significantly influence the PLW of fruits throughout the storage period. All the treatments had significantly lower PLW (%) as compared to control on all the days of observation. Irrespective of storage period, it was observed that T1 (15.60%) showed higher mean PLW and T11 (3.99%) showed lower mean PLW.

Irrespective of treatments, it was found that there was a significant increase in the per cent cumulative PLW of guava fruits during storage period of 10 days in all the treatments. This is evident from the mean PLW (%) values (3.29, 5.50, 8.44, 12.06 and 14.65%) which increased progressively over the storage period. The data also revealed that difference in PLW (%) due to the different treatments were statistically significant on all the days during storage.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on PLW index was also significant at all stages of storage. The maximum PLW was seen in the untreated fruits stored without any packaging (24.88%) at 10 DAS. The minimum PLW was noted in T11 (2.04%) at 2 DAS.

Taking into consideration the effect of polyethylene bag and tissue paper, it is evident from the values that fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag, in general, exhibited lower shrinkage index compared to those fruits wrapped with tissue paper, irrespective of storage period.

Significantly lower per cent weight loss (3.01, 6.01, 11.04, 15.14 and 19.18 %) of guava fruits was recorded in fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag (T2) than the fruits wrapped in tissue paper (5.00, 9.09, 15.02, 20.06 and 24.11 %) on all DAS.

It was found that fruits treated with 1000 ppm K2S2O5 and stored in perforated polyethylene bag had significantly higher PLW (%) than fruits treated with KMnO4 (T12), 2 per cent CaCl2 (T13) and 1 per cent Ca(NO3)2 (T14) kept in perforated polyethylene bag on all DAS

The data on PLW (%) in Table 2 indicated that fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bag after treatment with waxol (nipro and citrus wax) have lower PLW followed by fruits stored in open air after treatment with waxol followed by untreated fruits kept in perforated polyethylene bag and fruits chemically treated with potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite and kept in perforated polyethylene bag.

4.1.2. Chemical parameters

4.1.2.1 Total soluble solids (%)

The data on the effect of various post-harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (TSS) of guava fruits are presented in Table 3 and depicted in Fig.3. There were significant differences among the treatments regarding TSS on 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

The treatments were found to significantly influence the TSS of fruits throughout the storage period. Irrespective of storage period, it was observed that T6 (9.99%) showed higher mean TSS and T15 (10.71%) showed lower mean TSS.

Irrespective of treatments, the mean value of TSS (9.60, 11.11, 11.05, 10.61 and 8.84 %) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS indicated that, in general, the TSS content of fruits increased upto 4 DAS and declined thereafter.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on TSS was also significant at all stages of storage. It was observed that maximum TSS of guava fruits was found in T1 (12.20%) which was on par with T15 and T1 at 2 DAS and minimum TSS was also found in T1 (8.15%) at 10 DAS. Significantly higher TSS (10.40%) was recorded in T1 (untreated fruits) followed by T15 (10.20%) and T7 (10.15) at 2 DAS and the same trend was found after 4 DAS. After 6 DAS the higher TSS was recorded in T15 (11.60%) followed by T13 (11.15%) and T6 (11.18%). Higher TSS was recorded in T11 (11.60%) followed by T9 (11.40%), T8 (11.30%) at 8 DAS. After 10 DAS higher TSS was recorded in T11 (9.73%) followed by T10 (9.55%) and T9 (9.40%).

Minimum TSS (8.90%) was recorded in T11 (untreated fruits) followed by T10 (9.05%) and T9 (9.10%) and T8 (9.10%) at 2 DAS. The treatments T11, T9 and T10 showed minimum TSS (9.95, 10.05 and 10.25 %) after 4 DAS respectively.

Table 3. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 7.55

T1 10.40 12.20 11.10 10.15 8.15 10.40

T2 9.65 11.55 10.80 10.48 8.45 10.19

T3 9.40 10.90 11.35 9.95 8.50 10.02

T4 9.37 10.75 11.15 10.45 8.85 10.11

T5 9.25 10.70 10.97 10.40 8.95 10.05

T6 9.45 10.85 11.18 9.90 8.55 9.99

T7 10.15 12.00 11.13 10.45 8.45 10.44

T8 9.10 10.40 10.60 11.30 9.05 10.09

T9 9.10 10.05 10.70 11.40 9.40 10.13

T10 9.05 10.25 10.95 11.15 9.55 10.19

T11 8.90 9.95 10.90 11.60 9.73 10.22

T12 9.80 11.55 11.00 10.05 8.60 10.20

T13 10.10 11.75 11.15 10.60 8.65 10.45

T14 10.10 11.70 11.15 10.50 8.85 10.46

T15 10.20 12.05 11.60 10.80 8.90 10.71

Mean 9.60 11.11 11.05 10.61 8.84 10.24


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.04

0.02

0.08

0.13

0.07

0.30

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14



Perc

enta

ge

Treatments
















Fig. 3. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Fig. 3. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total soluble solids (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

At 6 DAS, minimum TSS was observed in T8 (10.6%), T9 (10.70%) and T2 (10.80%). The treatments T6, T3 and T12 showed minimum TSS (9.90, 9.95 and 10.05 %) at 8 DAS. At 10 DAS the minimum TSS was observed in T1 (8.15%) followed by T2 (8.45%) and T7 (8.45%) followed by T3 (8.50%) at 10 DAS.

Taking into consideration the effect of polyethylene bag and tissue paper, it is evident from the values that fruits wrapped in tissue paper exhibited lower TSS (10.15 and 12.00 %) at 2 and 4 DAS respectively and exhibited higher TSS (11.13, 10.45 and 8.45 %) at 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively.

The rate of increase of TSS (%) was lower in fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bag upto their maximum TSS (%) and thereafter rate of decrease of TSS (%) was lower as compared to fruits stored in open air, irrespective of storage period.

4.1.2.2 Reducing sugars (%)

The data on the effect of post-harvest treatments and storage period on reducing sugar content (%) of guava fruits, during storage are presented in Table 4. There were significant differences observed among the treatments regarding the reducing sugar content (%) on 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

The treatments were found to significantly influence the reducing sugar content of fruits throughout the storage period. Irrespective of storage period, it was observed that maximum mean reducing sugar was recorded in T6 (4.27%) and minimum mean reducing sugar was recorded in T2 (3.81%). From the data it was observed that change in reducing sugar content (%) showed the same trend as in case of change in TSS (%) content of guava fruits.

Irrespective of treatments, the mean value of reducing sugar (4.08, 4.47, 4.31, 4.12 and 3.27 %) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS indicated that, in general, the reducing sugar content of fruits increased upto 4 DAS and declined thereafter.

The data revealed that in fruits treated with waxol (nipro and citrus wax) at all the concentrations and kept in open air, the reducing sugar content (%) increased upto 6 DAS. The fruits treated with KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and potassium metabisulphite and kept in perforated polyethylene bag showed an increase in the reducing sugar content (%) upto 4 DAS and decreased thereafter.

Higher reducing sugar content (4.41 and 4.93 %) was observed in treatment T1 (untreated fruits) at 2 and 4 DAS respectively and the T6 (citrus wax 25%) showed higher reducing sugar content (4.93%) after 6 DAS.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on reducing sugar content was also significant at all stages of storage. The least reducing sugar content (3.44 and 3.75 %) was observed in T11 at 2 and 4 DAS followed by T10 (3.63 and 3.98 %) respectively. It is to noted that the control (T1) maintained significantly lower reducing sugar (3.98, 3.50 and 2.66 %) respectively at 6, 8 and 10 DAS followed by T12 (4.00%) , T12 (3.60%) and T12 (2.83%) at 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively.

As observed from Table 4, the total reducing sugar content (%) of fruits kept in perforated polyethylene bag was higher (4.07, 3.67 and 2.85 %) than control (3.98, 3.50 and 2.66 %) at 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively. It was also observed that at last day of storage the fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bag after treated with waxol (nipro and citrus wax) significantly retained higher reducing sugar content (%) than all other treatments, irrespective of storage period.

4.1.2.3 Non-reducing sugars (%)

The data regarding non-reducing sugar content (%) of guava fruits on all days of observation during storage are presented in Table 5.

The storage period were found to significantly influence the non-reducing sugar content of fruits throughout the storage period, but the treatments had no significant effect in respect of changes in the non-reducing sugar content of fruits during storage period.

Table 4. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on reducing sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 3.88

T1 4.41 4.93 3.98 3.50 2.66 3.99

T2 4.18 4.70 4.07 3.67 2.85 3.81

T3 4.08 4.30 4.60 4.18 3.24 4.08

T4 4.10 4.31 4.60 4.20 3.22 4.09

T5 3.97 4.23 4.50 4.12 3.50 4.06

T6 4.10 4.40 4.93 4.32 3.62 4.27

T7 4.31 4.90 4.18 3.74 2.98 4.02

T8 3.95 4.28 4.56 4.81 3.61 4.24

T9 3.81 4.18 4.54 4.85 3.87 4.25

T10 3.63 3.98 4.37 4.93 4.07 4.20

T11 3.44 3.75 4.21 4.98 4.12 4.10

T12 4.28 4.70 4.00 3.60 2.83 3.88

T13 4.28 4.74 4.03 3.60 2.84 3.90

T14 4.35 4.74 4.03 3.64 2.88 3.93

T15 4.35 4.90 4.13 3.58 2.79 3.95

Mean 4.08 4.47 4.31 4.12 3.27 4.05


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.05

0.03

0.11

0.18

0.11

0.41

Table 5. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on non-reducing sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 2.17

T1 2.04 2.30 2.30 1.71 1.32 1.97

T2 1.81 2.18 2.49 1.74 1.33 1.87

T3 2.00 2.45 2.38 1.49 1.06 1.88

T4 1.97 2.09 2.34 1.50 1.02 1.78

T5 2.02 2.02 2.26 1.50 1.06 1.77

T6 2.03 2.13 2.15 1.81 1.45 1.91

T7 2.02 2.30 2.22 1.51 1.24 1.86

T8 2.03 1.96 2.23 2.19 1.79 2.04

T9 2.02 2.06 2.23 2.22 1.62 2.03

T10 1.99 2.09 2.13 2.46 1.54 2.04

T11 2.01 2.10 2.12 2.51 1.83 2.12

T12 2.02 2.39 2.23 1.55 1.27 1.89

T13 1.97 2.36 2.20 1.57 1.28 1.88

T14 1.95 2.44 2.05 1.44 1.23 1.82

T15 2.00 2.33 2.42 1.81 1.35 1.98

Mean 1.99 2.21 2.25 1.80 1.36 1.92


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.07

0.04

0.16

NS

0.15

0.60

From the Table 5, it was observed that the mean value of non-reducing sugar content increased from 1.99 to 2.25 per cent upto 6 DAS and thereafter it decreased continuously upto last day of storage, irrespective of treatments.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on non-reducing sugar content was also significant at all stages of storage. The maximum non-reducing sugar content (2.51%) was seen in T11 after 8 DAS and minimum was seen in T4 (1.02%) at 10 DAS.

The minimum non-reducing sugar content (%) was seen in T2 (untreated fruits + perforated polyethylene bag) after 2 days (1.81%), in T8 (nipro wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag) after 4 days (1.96%), in T14 (2% CaCl2) after 6 days (2.05%) and 8 days (1.44%) after storage.

While comparing the fruits treated with different chemical compounds viz., potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite and stored in polyethylene bag, it was found that maximum non-reducing sugar content was found in T12 (2.02%) at 2 DAS, in T14 (2.44%) at 4 DAS and in T15 (2.42, 1.83 and 1.35 %) at 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively.

4.1.2.4 Total sugars (%)

The data on the effect of various post-harvest treatments and storage period on the total sugar content of guava fruits are presented in Table 6 and depicted in Fig. 4. The variation in total sugar content of the treatments under study was found to highly significant on all the DAS.

The treatments were found to significantly influence the total sugar content of fruits throughout the storage period. Irrespective of storage period, it was noted that maximum mean total sugar content (6.28%) was observed in both the treatments T8 and T9 and minimum mean total sugar content was observed (5.75%) in T2 and T14.

Irrespective of treatments, from the mean values (6.07, 6.68, 6.56, 5.92 and 4.63 %) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS, it is evident that the total sugar content (%) increased with the advancement of storage period upto 4 days and it decreased thereafter upto last DAS.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on total sugar content was also significant at all stages of storage. The maximum total sugar content (7.50%) was seen in T11 at 8 DAS and minimum total sugar content (3.98%) was seen in T1 at 10 DAS.

Significantly lower total sugar content (5.45 and 5.85 %) was recorded in T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) at 2 and 4 DAS respectively. On the 6 and 8 DAS T14 (2% CaCl2) and T12 (KMnO4) showed minimum total sugar content (6.08 and 5.15 %) respectively. Treatment T1 (untreated fruits) reported to have minimum total sugar content (3.98%) at 10 DAS.

4.1.2.5 Ascorbic acid (mg/100 g fruit)

The data related to the ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g fruit) as affected by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 7 and depicted in Fig. 5. The treatments under study differed significantly with regards to the ascorbic acid content of the fruits. The treatment and storage period were found to significantly influence the ascorbic acid of fruits throughout the storage period.

Irrespective of storage period, it was found that maximum mean ascorbic acid content (213.37 mg/100 g fruit) was seen in T11 and minimum mean ascorbic acid content (133.37 mg/100 g fruit) was seen in T1.

In freshly harvested guava fruits, the ascorbic acid content was 231.46 mg/10 g on fresh weight basis. The data indicated that there was a gradual decline in the ascorbic acid content of guava fruits irrespective of the treatments during the course of storage. The mean values of ascorbic acid content (200.80, 189.67, 179.33, 168.66 and 151.69 mg/100 g fruits) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively showed a decreasing trend over the period.

Table 6. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 6.05

T1 6.44 7.24 6.28 5.21 3.98 5.89

T2 6.00 6.88 6.56 5.41 4.18 5.75

T3 6.08 6.75 6.98 5.67 4.30 5.96

T4 6.07 6.40 6.93 5.70 4.24 5.87

T5 5.98 6.25 6.76 5.62 4.56 5.84

T6 6.13 6.53 7.08 6.13 5.08 6.19

T7 6.32 7.20 6.40 5.25 4.22 5.88

T8 5.98 6.24 6.79 7.00 5.39 6.28

T9 5.83 6.24 6.76 7.08 5.50 6.28

T10 5.62 6.08 6.50 7.38 5.62 6.24

T11 5.45 5.85 6.34 7.50 5.95 6.22

T12 6.30 7.10 6.22 5.15 4.10 5.77

T13 6.25 7.10 6.23 5.17 4.12 5.77

T14 6.30 7.18 6.08 5.08 4.11 5.75

T15 6.35 7.24 6.55 5.38 4.14 5.93

Mean 6.07 6.68 6.56 5.92 4.63 5.97


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.05

0.03

0.12

0.20

0.16

0.45

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8



Perc

enta

ge

Treatments
















Fig. 4. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Fig. 4. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on total sugars (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Table 7. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g of fruit) of guava fruit cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 231.46

T1 163.30 143.90 133.69 121.32 103.62 133.37

T2 200.73 193.79 182.28 171.90 157.55 181.25

T3 205.82 194.23 180.14 168.33 154.90 180.68

T4 208.23 198.54 185.81 173.33 160.30 185.24

T5 202.72 191.92 177.07 164.09 151.73 177.50

T6 210.67 201.58 188.97 177.46 165.79 188.89

T7 175.10 153.33 141.99 127.99 107.37 141.15

T8 214.90 209.75 200.82 190.18 177.95 198.72

T9 218.67 212.66 204.43 194.71 181.88 202.47

T10 221.80 216.04 209.94 200.59 188.12 207.30

T11 225.76 221.85 215.80 207.24 196.22 213.37

T12 191.75 178.76 168.26 159.72 135.04 166.71

T13 198.79 187.36 179.68 172.68 142.14 176.13

T14 195.56 183.65 174.33 166.93 138.54 171.80

T15 178.20 157.73 146.75 133.40 114.27 146.07

Mean 200.80 189.67 179.33 168.66 151.69 178.03


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.784

0.453

1.754

2.894

1.671

6.471

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8



Perc

enta

ge

Treatments
















Fig. 5. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on titratable acidity (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar


Within polyethylene packaging, waxol (nipro and citrus wax) treated fruits performed best in retaining the ascorbic acid followed by fruits treated with chemical compounds (KMnO4,

Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and K2S2O5).

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on ascorbic acid content (mg/100 g fruit) was also significant at all stages of storage. The higher ascorbic acid content (225.76 mg/100 g fruit) was reported in T11 at 2 DAS and lower ascorbic acid content (103.62 mg/100 g fruit) was reported in T1 at 10 DAS.

Waxol (nipro and citrus wax) treated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag performed better in retention of ascorbic acid (mg/100 g fruits) followed by fruits treated with waxol and kept in open air. Among waxol treated fruits, T6 (citrus wax 25%) reported to retained higher ascorbic acid content followed by T4 (nipro wax 25%), T3 (nipro wax 17%) and T5 (citrus wax 17%) on all DAS.

4.12.6 Total titratable acidity (%)

The total tritratable acidity was expressed in terms of citric acid as percentage on fresh fruit weight basis.

The data on changes in total tritratable acidity as influenced by post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 8 and depicted in Fig. 6. The treatments and storage period were found to significantly influence the total tritratable acidity of fruits throughout the storage period.

The variations in total tritratable acidity of guava fruits caused by different post-harvest treatments during storage were significant on all the days of observation. Irrespective of storage period, the maximum mean total tritratable acidity (0.665%) was seen in T11 and minimum mean total tritratable acidity (0.271%) was seen in T1.

The initial (0.746%) and mean values respectively at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS (0.665, 0.607, 0.531, 0.472 and 0.428 %) revealed that the total tritratable acidity of guava fruits during storage decreased gradually over the period, irrespective of treatments.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on acidity was also significant at all stages of storage. The higher acidity content (0.740%) was reported in T11 at 2 DAS and lower ascorbic acid content (0.271%) was reported in T1 at 10 DAS.

Fruits treated with 25 per cent citrus wax and packed in perforated polyethylene bag showed significantly higher acidity over all other treatments on all the days of observation. The total tritratable acidity in treatment T11 was declined throughout the storage period, but decline was faster upto 6 DAS and thereafter slower upto last DAS.

Minimum total tritratable acidity (0.472, 0.418, 0.368, 0.325 and 0.271 %) was recorded in T1 (untreated fruits) followed by T15 (1000 ppm Potassium metabisulphite) and T7 (untreated fruits + tissue paper) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

While comparing the fruits treated with different chemical compounds viz., potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite (K2S2O5) and stored in polyethylene bag, it was found that treatment T14 (2% CaCl2) was better in retaining total tritratable acidity (%) followed by T12 (KMnO4), T13 (1% Ca(NO3)2) and T15 (1000 ppm K2S2O5) on 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

4.1.2.7 Sugar : acid ratio

The data related to the sugar : acid ratio as affected by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 9. The treatment and storage period were found to significantly influence the sugar : acid ratio of fruits throughout the storage period.

The treatments under study differed significantly with regard to sugar : acid ratio of the fruits. Irrespective of storage period, it was found that maximum mean sugar : acid ratio (16.003) was seen in T1 and minimum mean sugar : acid ratio (9.492) was seen in T11.

Irrespective of treatments, from the mean values (9.322, 11.417, 12.747, 12.792 and 11.134) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS, it is evident that the sugar : acid ratio increased with the advancement of storage period upto 8 days and decreased thereafter.

Table 8. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on titratable acidity (%) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 0.746

T1 0.472 0.418 0.368 0.325 0.271 0.371

T2 0.698 0.631 0.540 0.470 0.425 0.553

T3 0.705 0.636 0.542 0.471 0.428 0.557

T4 0.708 0.638 0.545 0.474 0.431 0.559

T5 0.701 0.633 0.542 0.473 0.430 0.556

T6 0.710 0.643 0.533 0.485 0.444 0.553

T7 0.528 0.467 0.392 0.341 0.294 0.404

T8 0.725 0.707 0.642 0.594 0.553 0.644

T9 0.733 0.716 0.652 0.605 0.566 0.654

T10 0.736 0.720 0.657 0.611 0.573 0.659

T11 0.740 0.725 0.663 0.618 0.581 0.665

T12 0.648 0.556 0.483 0.418 0.371 0.495

T13 0.630 0.540 0.469 0.406 0.361 0.481

T14 0.665 0.575 0.504 0.441 0.396 0.517

T15 0.580 0.500 0.428 0.350 0.300 0.432

Mean 0.665 0.607 0.531 0.472 0.428 0.541


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.001

0.001

0.002

0.004

0.002

0.008

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8



Perc

enta

ge

Treatments


















Table 9. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on sugar : acid ratio of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Days after storage


Initial value 8.110

T1 13.638 17.296 17.747 16.636 14.697 16.003

T2 8.587 10.916 11.637 11.722 9.842 10.541

T3 8.622 10.608 12.865 11.776 10.046 10.783

T4 8.570 10.032 12.753 12.242 9.837 10.687

T5 8.536 9.884 12.527 11.947 10.599 10.699

T6 8.628 10.157 13.283 12.374 11.442 11.177

T7 11.983 15.411 16.277 15.527 14.386 14.717

T8 8.241 8.831 10.593 11.543 9.758 9.793

T9 7.950 8.716 10.368 11.776 9.706 9.703

T10 7.636 8.443 9.914 12.215 9.808 9.603

T11 7.365 8.069 9.577 12.202 10.246 9.492

T12 9.728 12.771 12.920 12.183 11.045 11.730

T13 9.915 13.153 13.235 12.627 11.422 12.070

T14 9.470 12.487 12.141 11.504 10.381 11.197

T15 10.952 14.474 15.363 15.606 13.789 14.037

Mean 9.322 11.417 12.747 12.792 11.134 11.482


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.784

0.453

1.754

2.894

1.671

6.471

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on sugar : acid ratio was also significant at all stages of storage. The higher sugar : acid ratio (17.747) was reported in T1 at 6 DAS and lower sugar : acid ratio (7.365) was reported in T11 at 2 DAS.

4.1.3 Organoleptic evaluation

The results of organoleptic evaluation of the guava fruits recorded at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS by a panel of ten judges are given in Table 10, 11, 12 and 13.

There were significant differences among the treatments regarding various organoleptic qualities of fruits on all the days of evaluation. The scores were always higher in the treatment T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) as compared to rest of the treatments during all the DAS.

4.1.3.1 Colour and appearance (scores out of 5.0)

The data in respect of the effect of various treatments and storage period on the colour and appearance of the fruits on different date of observation as depicted by scores are presented in Table 10 and depicted in Fig. 7.

The treatments were found to differ significantly with regard to colour and appearance. The maximum mean score (4.28) was found in T11 and minimum mean score (1.84) was found in T1, irrespective of the storage period.

Irrespective of the treatments, the mean scores for colour and appearance decreased gradually from 4.04 at 2 DAS to 1.98 at 10 DAS.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on colour and appearance was also significant at all stages of storage. The maximum score (4.73) was reported in T11 at 2 DAS and minimum mean score (0.88) was reported in T1 at 10 DAS.

The maximum score (4.73, 4.56, 4.29, 4.09 and 3.71) was observed in T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) followed by T10 (citrus wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag), T9 (nipro wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) and T8 (nipro wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag) on 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS. On 10 DAS the fruits kept in perforated polyethylene bag after treating with waxol had significantly higher score as compared to the remaining treatments.

While comparing the fruits treated with different chemical compounds viz., potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite and stored in polyethylene bag, it was found that maximum score was found in treatment T14 (3.33, 2.72, 2.22 and 1.32) followed by in treatment T13 at 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS.

The least scores (2.99, 2.45, 1.70, 1.28 and 0.88) were observed in untreated fruits (control) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS. The untreated fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bag had higher scores (4.02, 3.52, 3.12, 2.62 and 1.54) than the fruits wrapped with tissue paper (3.30, 2.88, 2.40, 1.82 and 1.00) on all DAS.

4.1.3.2 Texture (scores out of 5.0)

The data regarding the texture of fruits as influenced by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 12 and depicted in Fig. 8. Analysis of data revealed that the variation among the treatments was highly significant.

The variations in the score among the treatments were found to be statistically significant. The maximum mean score (4.30) was found in T11 and minimum mean score (2.13) was found in T1, irrespective of the storage period.

The loss in texture as the storage period prolonged is evidenced by the mean score (4.22, 3.72, 3.30, 2.88 and 2.14) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively, irrespective of the treatments.

The interaction effect between the storage period and treatments on texture was also significant at all stages of storage. The maximum score (4.76) was reported in T11 at 2 DAS and minimum mean score (1.00) was reported in T1 at 10 DAS.

Table 10. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on colour and appearance of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Days after storage


T1 2.99 2.45 1.70 1.28 0.80 1.84

T2 4.02 3.52 3.12 2.62 1.54 2.96

T3 4.23 3.70 3.36 2.88 1.82 3.20

T4 4.27 3.75 3.41 2.93 2.08 3.29

T5 4.27 3.88 3.45 3.01 2.11 3.34

T6 4.33 3.93 3.5 3.10 2.31 3.43

T7 3.30 2.88 2.40 1.82 1.00 2.28

T8 4.40 3.99 3.60 3.21 2.91 3.62

T9 4.53 4.13 3.90 3.56 3.32 3.89

T10 4.60 4.22 4.07 3.86 3.63 4.08

T11 4.73 4.56 4.29 4.09 3.71 4.28

T12 3.53 3.00 2.54 1.99 1.00 2.41

T13 3.68 3.12 2.66 2.10 1.10 2.53

T14 3.80 3.33 2.72 2.22 1.32 2.68

T15 3.88 2.91 2.44 1.99 1.00 2.44

Mean 4.04 3.56 3.14 2.71 1.98 3.08


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.08

0.05

0.18

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Score

out of 5.0

Treatments
















Fig. 7. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on colour and appearance of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Fig. 7. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on colour and appearance of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Table 11. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on texture of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Days after storage


T1 3.33 2.73 2.00 1.59 1.00 2.13

T2 4.23 3.71 3.33 2.81 1.73 3.16

T3 4.33 3.89 3.48 3.05 1.93 3.34

T4 4.40 3.95 3.52 3.11 2.21 3.44

T5 4.40 4.02 3.61 3.13 2.21 3.47

T6 4.53 4.15 3.75 3.35 2.51 3.66

T7 3.82 2.94 2.41 1.98 1.18 2.47

T8 4.60 4.15 3.80 3.43 3.11 3.82

T9 4.60 4.20 3.97 3.65 3.40 3.96

T10 4.67 4.31 4.21 3.93 3.72 4.17

T11 4.76 4.54 4.32 4.13 3.74 4.30

T12 4.08 3.56 3.11 2.56 1.53 2.97

T13 3.80 3.22 2.79 2.23 1.21 2.65

T14 3.97 3.54 2.91 2.42 1.44 2.86

T15 3.80 2.86 2.36 1.89 1.13 2.41

Mean 4.22 3.72 3.30 2.88 2.14 3.25


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0. 02

0.01

0.05

0.09

0.04

0.19

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Score

out of 5.0

Treatments
















Fig. 8. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on texture of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Fig. 8. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on texture of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

The maximum score (4.76, 4.54, 4.32, 4.13 and 3.74) in respect of texture were obtained with T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) followed by T10 (citrus wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively. The difference was significant with all other treatments on all DAS.

At 10 DAS, the fruits were unacceptable in the treatments T1 (control); poorly acceptable in the T2 (untreated fruits + perforated polyethylene bag), T3 (nipro wax 17%), T7 (untreated fruits + tissue paper), T12 (KMnO4), T13 (1% Ca(NO3)2), T14 (2% CaCl2) and T15 (1000 ppm Potassium metabisulphite); fairly acceptable in the treatments T6 (citrus wax 25%), T5 (citrus wax 17%), T4 (nipro wax 25%) and acceptable in the treatment T8 (nipro wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag), T9 (nipro wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag), T10 (citrus wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag) and T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag).

The untreated fruits (control) recorded least score (3.33, 2.73, 2.00, 1.52 and 1.00) in respect of texture than the other treatments at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively.

4.1.3.3 Taste and flavour (scores out of 5.0)

The data pertaining to the effect of various post-harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits (cv. Sardar) during the course of storage are presented in Table 12 and depicted in Fig. 9.

The variations in the score among the treatments were found to be statistically significant. The maximum mean score (4.38) was found in T11 and minimum mean score (2.06) was found in T1, irrespective of the storage period.

Taste and flavour of guava fruits was reduced over the storage period as evident from the mean score (4.32, 3.81, 3.39, 2.96 and 2.22) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively, irrespective of the treatments. The decline was gradual from 4 to 8 days and it was rapid in the beginning and towards the end of storage.


Maximum score was obtained in T11 (4.83, 4.68, 4.38, 4.21 and 3.81) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively. Fruits treated with 25 per cent citrus wax, 17 per cent citrus wax and 25 per cent nipro wax and packed in perforated polyethylene bag obtained similar score (4.83, 4.80 and 4.80) at 2 DAS. However, the T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) scored significantly higher value for taste and flavour as compared to rest of the treatments.

The fruits packed in polyethylene bag after treating with waxol (nipro and citrus wax) were acceptable on 10

th day of storage. The fruits treated with waxol and kept in open air

were fairly acceptable, except the fruits treated with 25 per cent citrus wax, and the fruits treated with KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2, K2S2O5, wrapped with tissue paper and untreated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag were poorly acceptable and the control fruits were unacceptable on 10 DAS.

The minimum score was found in control fruits (3.21, 2.67, 1.92, 1.50 and 0.99) followed by untreated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag on all DAS.

4.1.3.4 Overall acceptability (scores out of 5.0)

The result obtained on overall acceptability of fruits as affected by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 13 and depicted in Fig. 10. The variations among the treatments were found to be statistically significant.

The variations in the score among the treatments were found to statistically significant. The maximum mean score (4.31) was found in T11 and minimum mean score (2.01) was found in T1, irrespective of the storage period.

The overall acceptability score for guava fruits declined over storage and it is evident from the mean value (4.20, 3.67, 3.25, 2.82 and 2.13) at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively, irrespective of the treatments.

Table 12. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Days after storage


T1 3.21 2.67 1.92 1.50 0.99 2.06

T2 4.27 3.72 3.38 2.86 1.79 3.20

T3 4.40 3.88 3.53 3.06 1.95 3.36

T4 4.58 4.08 3.72 3.25 2.39 3.60

T5 4.60 4.21 3.76 3.32 2.41 3.66

T6 4.63 4.25 3.82 3.40 2.66 3.75

T7 3.85 2.86 2.37 1.85 1.12 2.41

T8 4.67 4.27 3.91 3.51 3.13 3.90

T9 4.80 4.40 4.17 3.85 3.54 4.15

T10 4.80 4.45 4.26 4.08 3.73 4.26

T11 4.83 4.68 4.38 4.21 3.81 4.38

T12 4.20 3.71 3.20 2.66 1.67 3.09

T13 3.98 3.42 2.96 2.42 1.41 2.84

T14 4.07 3.61 2.98 2.47 1.56 2.94

T15 3.87 2.90 2.43 1.98 1.10 2.46

Mean 4.32 3.81 3.39 2.96 2.22 3.34


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.08

0.04

0.18

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Score

out of 5.0

Treatments
















Fig. 9. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Fig. 9. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on taste and flavour of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Table 13. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on overall acceptability of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Days after storage


T1 3.20 2.61 1.84 1.42 0.99 2.01

T2 4.17 3.68 3.27 2.77 1.71 3.12

T3 4.32 3.81 3.45 2.97 1.91 3.29

T4 4.42 3.91 3.52 3.08 2.21 3.43

T5 4.45 4.00 3.59 3.15 2.25 3.49

T6 4.51 4.09 3.66 3.26 2.47 3.60

T7 3.67 2.77 2.18 1.67 1.11 2.28

T8 4.56 4.15 3.74 3.38 3.06 3.78

T9 4.63 4.22 4.01 3.67 3.43 3.99

T10 4.69 4.31 4.16 3.95 3.72 4.17

T11 4.78 4.55 4.33 4.12 3.78 4.31

T12 3.95 3.40 2.94 2.39 1.49 2.83

T13 3.82 3.26 2.79 2.24 1.24 2.67

T14 3.94 3.46 2.86 2.35 1.41 2.80

T15 3.85 2.89 2.41 1.95 1.19 2.46

Mean 4.20 3.67 3.25 2.82 2.13 3.22


Treatments (T)

Storage period (S)

Interaction (T x S)

0.02

0.01

0.05

0.09

0.05

0.19

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5



Score

out of 5.0

Treatments
















Fig. 10. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on overall acceptability of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)

Fig. 10. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on overall acceptability of guava fruits cv. Sardar (score out of 5.0)


The T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) recorded highest score (4.78, 4.55, 4.33, 4.12 and 3.78) followed by T10 (citrus wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag) with regards to overall acceptability at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 DAS respectively. The T10 was statistically on par with treatment T9 (nipro wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) at 2, 4, and 6, DAS.

The minimum score was observed in control fruits (3.20, 2.61, 1.84, 1.42 and 0.99) followed by T7 (untreated fruits + tissue paper) on all DAS.

In polyethylene packaging, only waxol treated fruits (T8, T9, T10 and T11) were in acceptable condition at the 10 DAS. The fruits kept in open condition after treating with waxol, except the treatment T3, were fairly acceptable; and the fruits treated with chemical compounds (KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2, K2S2O5), fruits packed in polyethylene bags and fruits wrapped with tissue paper were poorly acceptable. The control fruits having an overall acceptability score of less than 3.00 were are not acceptable on 4 DAS.

4.1.4 Shelf-life (days)

The data related to the shelf-life (days) of guava fruits as affected by various post-harvest treatments and storage period are presented in Table 14.

The data revealed that there were significant differences among the treatments and packaging materials with respect to shelf-life of fruits during the storage period.

In general, the untreated fruits (control) recorded significantly lowest shelf-life (2.05 days) than other treatments. The untreated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag had higher shelf-life (4.66 days) than untreated fruits wrapped with tissue paper (2.96 days).

Highest shelf-life of 8.21 days was recorded in T11 (citrus wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) followed by 7.46 days in T10 (citrus wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag), 7.42 days in T9 (nipro wax 25% + perforated polyethylene bag) and 7.13 days in T8 (nipro wax 17% + perforated polyethylene bag). It was observed that T10 statistically on par with T9 and T8.

While comparing the shelf-life of guava fruits treated with waxol (nipro and citrus wax) without packaging, it was found that higher shelf-life of 5.67 days was observed in T6 (25% citrus wax) followed by 5.46 days in T5 (17% citrus wax) 5.42 days in T4 (25% nipro wax) and 5.22 in T3 (17% nipro wax). It was observed that T6 statistically on par with T5 and T4.

While comparing the fruits treated with different chemical compounds viz., potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calcium chloride, potassium metabisulphite and stored in polyethylene bag, it was found that maximum shelf-life was found in T12 (4.46 days) followed by in T14 (4.36 days), in T13 (4.25 days) and in T15 (3.12 days). It was observed that T12

statistically on par with T13, T14 and T15.

4.1.5 Post-harvest spoilage

During the storage period of 10 days no pathogens, causing rotting in guava fruits, were observed.

4.2 Studies on vegetative propagation of guava (Psidium guajava L.) and dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.)

No rooting was observed in guava and dhamini soft-wood cuttings in all ten treatments including control. The cuttings of guava and dhamini dried within one month of planting. Hence no observations were recorded.

Table 14. Effect of post harvest treatments and storage period on shelf-life (days) of guava fruits cv. Sardar

Treatments Shelf-life

T1 - Untreated fruits. 2.05

T2 - Untreated fruits stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1%

vents. 4.66

T3 - Fruits dipped in 17% Nipro wax for 5 minutes. 5.22

T4 - Fruits dipped in 25% Nipro wax for 5 minutes. 5.42

T5 - Fruits dipped in 17% Citrus wax for 5 minutes. 5.46

T6 - Fruits dipped in 25% Citrus wax for 5 minutes. 5.67

T7 - Fruits wrapped with tissue paper. 2.96

T8 - Fruits dipped in 17% Nipro wax for 5 minutes + stored in

polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1% vents. 7.13

T9 - Fruits dipped in 25% Nipro wax for 5 minutes + stored in


T10 - Fruits dipped in 17% Citrus wax for 5 minutes + stored in


T11 - Fruits dipped in 25% Citrus wax for 5 minutes + stored in


T12 - Fruits stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 0.5% vents

containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4 solution. 4.66

T13 - Fruits dipped in 1% Ca(NO3)2 solution for 5 minutes + stored in


T14 - Fruits dipped in 2% CaCl2 solution for 5 minutes + stored in


T15 - Fruits dipped in 1000 ppm potassium metabisulphite solution for

5 minutes + stored in polyethylene bag of 200 gauge with 1%

vents.

3.12

Mean 5.22

S.Em± 0.11

C.D. at 1% 0.42

5. DISCUSSION5.1 Studies on extension of shelf-life of guava (Psidium guajavaL.) fruits

More than 30 per cent of horticultural produce in our country never reaches theconsumers due to careless handling and faulty storage (Salunkhe, 1985 and Chadha, 1994).Moreover the post-harvest losses in guava fruits are estimated to be 3.4 to 15.1 per cent(Chadha and Pareek, 1993b). It is inevitable for the growers to sell the produce at low pricesduring the peak season; as a result producer incurs heavy loss. To avoid glut in the marketand to reap good returns, it is of top most priority to store the fruits for longer duration. Theextended shelf-life can be obtained by slowing down the rate of respiration, transpiration andmicrobial infection (Chadha, 1994).

Guava is a highly perishable fruit. Being a climacteric fruit, it keeps well for only 2 to 3days after harvest at ambient condition and losses its acceptability to eat within one or twodays after ripening due to rapid degradative metabolism. Because of their high moisturecontent and thin and soft skin, guava fruits are subjected to higher rate of transpiration,respiration, ripening and other biological activities even after harvest which deteriorate thequality of the fruits in a short period and finally make it unmarketable. After reaching thephysiological maturity it ripens fast resulting in early senescence of the fruit. So proper post-harvest handling is very important to minimise the post-harvest losses.

At present, there is a need for development of low cost technology for extending shelf-life of fruits to suit the economy of growers, traders and consumers. In this contest, an attemptwas made to investigate the effect of various post-harvest treatments on guava cv. Sardarfruits with waxol (nipro and citrus wax), potassium permanganate, calcium nitrate, calciumchloride, potassium metabisulphite with or without packaging.

The results obtained in respect of various physico-chemical parameters, organolepticquality and shelf-life of guava (cv. Sardar) fruits as influenced by packaging and chemicaltreatments during the period of storage are discussed hereunder.

5.1.1 Physical parametersFruits are very high in moisture content ranging from 75 to 90 per cent. Guava fruit

contains 82.50 per cent water (Phandis, 1970). Under normal atmosphere conditions fruitslose moisture causing shrinkage and loss of turgidity. Secondly, freshly harvested fruits areliving entities; carry out respiration and transpiration which leads to physiological loss inweight (PLW). The loss of water and gaseous exchange, if retarded would extend the shelf-life of fruits.

In the present investigation, the shrinkage and weight loss during storage wereconsiderably high in the control. The post-harvest treatments imposed on fruits resulted insignificant differences in the percentage of shrinkage and PLW. Among the treatments tried,the lowest shrinkage and weight loss were associated with the fruits treating with 25 per centcitrus wax and packed in perforated polyethylene bag. This was followed by the fruits kept inperforated polyethylene bag after treating with 17 per cent citrus wax. Both these treatmentsdiffered significantly over all other treatments on different days of observation. Thus waxingand storage of fruits in perforated polyethylene bag was found to be effective in reducingshrinkage and weight loss. The reduction in shrinkage and weight loss by waxing was due tothe retardation of the process of transpiration and respiration. Wax emulsion forms a layer ofthin coating on the surface of the fruit, thereby blocks the stomata partially and reduces therate of respiration and transpiration (Baviskar et al., 1955). The favourable effects of waxcoating in minimising the PLW (%) were also reported by Patel et al. (1993), Pandey et al.,(2010), Salinas-Hernandez et al. (2010) in guava fruits; Shivaramareddy and Thimmaraju(1989) in Alphonso mango fruits; Aworh et al. (1991) in grape fruits; Sarkar et al. (1995) inGiant Governor banana fruits; Jholgiker and Reddy (2007) in Annona squamosa fruits;Sharma and Ghuman, (2009) in Kinnow mandarin; and Meena et al. (2009) in ber fruits.

Plate 3. Treated guava fruits on the day of harvest

Plate 4. Treated guava fruits two days after storage

On the other hand, control fruits kept in the open air without any packaging exhibitedsignificantly higher shrinkage and weight loss as compared to all other treatments. The drivingforce for this consequence is the vapour pressure of moisture in the fruits. Here moisture lossoccurred due to higher vapour pressure of moisture inside the fruit than the surroundingatmosphere leading to shrinkage and weight loss. Unhindered respiration due to plenty ofoxygen available in the vicinity of fruits could also be responsible for increased shrinkageindex and physiological loss in weight.

Packaging in ventilated polyethylene bag significantly reduced the shrinkage andweight loss as compared to tissue paper wrapped fruits and unpacked fruits. The reduction inshrinkage and weight loss of fruits by ventilated polyethylene bags could be attributed to thereason that polyethylene bags act as a barrier for moisture loss by creating high humidity inthe vicinity of fruits and thereby retarding the moisture loss through transpiration. Similar effectof reducing the weight loss by packaging in ventilated polyethylene bag has also beenreported by Ahlawat et al. (1980), Khedkar et al. (1982), Dhoot et al. (1984), Dutta et al.,1991, Pratibha and Suman (2007) in guava fruits; Sharma et al. (2007) in Kinnow fruits;Sarkar et al. (1997) in banana fruits; Rahman et al., (1995) in apple fruits; and Nikam andWasker (1995) in sapota fruits.

5.1.2 Chemical parametersThe guava fruits, irrespective of the treatments, exhibited a general increase in the

TSS (%) content upto 4 days of storage. However, the decline in TSS was noticed after 4days of storage in certain treatments and after 6 days in the rest. None of the treatmentsshowed a gradual increase in the total soluble solids throughout the storage period. Thus, theresults of present study are strongly contradicting with the outcome of Patel et al. (1993) inguava fruits with respect to TSS trend during storage.

The fruits treating with KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and K2S2O5 and fruits wrapped intissue paper and control fruits registered a decline in TSS (%) on the 6th day indicating thatthe ripening process was completed before the 6th day. On the other hand, a further rise in theTSS content (%) of remaining treatments signified that the process of ripening was stillcontinuing. Similar report of increment and decline in the total soluble solids during storagewere observed by Bhullar and Farmahan (1980), Singh and Chauhan (1982), Dhoot et al.(1984) and Jagadeesh (1994) in guava fruits; Roychoudhury et al. (1992) in litchi fruits;Sanjay (1996) in sapota fruits; and Kukanoor (1996) and Singh et al. (1998) in mango fruits.

Maximum TSS content at 8 and 10 days after storage was associated with the fruitspacked in polyethylene bag after treatment with 25 per cent citrus wax. Relatively lower TSScontent in waxol treating fruits after 2 and 4 days of storage and in fruits packed inpolyethylene bag after treating with waxol at 2, 4 and 6 days after storage can be attributed tothe slower rate of ripening process (i.e. solubilisation of stored materials). Perhaps reducedrate of respiration and ethylene production might be responsible for highest retention of totalsoluble solids by waxol treating fruits and fruits kept in polyethylene bag after treating withwaxol.

The changes in the total and reducing sugar content of guava fruits during storageinduced by various post-harvest treatments followed a trend similar to total soluble solids(TSS). There was a significant increase in the total and reducing sugar content for some timeduring storage in all the treatments. With the advance in storage period, polysaccharides gethydrolysed into mono and disaccharides which in turn may lead to an increase in TSS andsugars. Upon complete hydrolysis of polysaccharides, no further increase occurs andsubsequently a decline in the parameters is predictable as they are the primary substrate forrespiration. The results obtained are in conformity with the reports of Singh and Chauhan(1982), Jagadeesh (1994), Pandey et al. (2010) in guava fruts; Roychoudhry et al. (1992) inlitchi fruits; Kuknoor (1996) in mango fruits; and Yadav et al. (2010) in Kinnow mandarin fruits.

Control fruits, fruits wrapped in tissue paper and fruits packed in polyethylene bagregistered a downward trend of total and reducing sugar after 4 days of storage. Poorretention of total and reducing sugar in these stored fruits may be attributed to the fasterutilization of sugars in respiration.

Plate 5. Treated guava fruits four days after storage

Plate 6. Treated guava fruits six days after storage

Reduced utilization of sugars due to slow rate of respiration might be responsible formaintenance of higher value of total sugar and reducing sugars upto 6 days of storage in waxtreating fruits and upto 8 days of storage in fruits packed in polyethylene bag after treatingwith waxol.

Much earlier reduction in reducing sugar content of fruits treating with chemicalcompounds (KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and K2S2O5) and packed in polyethylene bag may beattributed to the accumulation of non-reducing sugars.

The fruits treating with 25 per cent citrus wax and packed in polyethylene bags hadrelatively higher total and reducing sugar content after 8 and 10 days of storage. This could bemainly due to the reduced rate of respiration and delayed ripening. The results were inagreement with those of Jagadeesh (1994), Pandey et al. (2010) in guava fruits;Pradeepgouda (1999) in litchi fruits; and Yadav et al. (2010) in Kinnow mandarin fruits. 25 percent citrus wax treating fruits packed in polyethylene bag recorded comparatively lower sugarcontent than 17 per cent citrus wax treating fruits mostly due to slow rate of hydrolysis ofstarch.

There was decrease in ascorbic acid content (mg / g fresh fruits) in all the treatmentsduring the storage period of 10 days. Salunkhe and Desai (1984) also agree that ascorbicacid content is generally lowered during storage of fresh fruits. The general decrease inascorbic acid content during storage may be due to oxidative destruction of Vitamin C(ascorbic acid) in the presence of molecular oxygen by ascorbic acid oxidase (Mapson, 1970).Similar decrease in ascorbic acid was also reported by Goutam et al. (2010), Jagadeesh(1994), Pandey et al., 2010) in guava fruits; Fageria et al. (2007) in ber fruits; Karibasappaand Gupta (1988) in Khasi mandarin fruits; Kumar et al., (2005) in aonla fruits; andRoychoudhry et al. (1992) in Bombai litchi fruits. The rapid decline and significantly lowerascorbic acid content was observed in control fruits kept in the open air without any packagingat 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 days of storage. Kumar et al. (2005) also reported lower values of ascorbicacid in control (untreating) fruits. Ample of oxygen available in the vicinity of fruits could beattributed to the rapid decline in ascorbic acid content in control fruits.

However, it could be seen at all the stages of storage that higher content of ascorbicacid was maintained in fruits treating with 25 per cent citrus wax and packed in perforatedpolyethylene bag followed by fruits treating with 17 per cent citrus wax and packed inperforated polyethylene bag.

Partial sealing of pores by waxing on the fruit surface might have protected oxygensensitive ascorbic acid from being degraded. Modified gaseous atmosphere around the fruitsas a result of perforated polyethylene packaging provided an additional advantage. Thuswaxing and polyethylene storage helped the stored fruits to retain more ascorbic acid thanother fruits. Beneficial effect of waxol and polyethylene packaging were reported by Garg etal. (1976), Jagadeesh (1994), Singh et al. (1976), Singh and Chauhan (1982) and Venkatesha(1991) in guava fruits in maintaining higher ascorbic acid level.

In the present study, it was found that fruits stored in perforated polyethylene bagwere associated with higher ascorbic acid as compared to those wrapped with tissue paper.The same result was found by Prasad (1985) in Alphonso mango fruits. During storage, heatand oxygen sensitive ascorbic acid is largely dependent on storage atmosphere and also thepackaging medium (Salunkhe et al., 1976). Thus polyethylene packaging was found to bemore superior in meeting the requirements to keep higher ascorbic acid level.

General declining trend in titratable acidity was noticed with advances in storageperiod irrespective of the treatments. The loss in acidity can be attributed to the activity ofcarboxylase and malic dehydrogenase, which are closely associated with the respiration rate(Neal and Hulme, 1958), or may be due to the utilization of acid during respiration (Dutta etal., 1960). The acid loss was, however, recorded to be lowest in the fruits packed inperforated polyethylene bag after treating with 25 per cent of citrus wax followed by 17 percent of citrus wax at all the stages of storage. Minimum reduction in organic acid of guavafruits during storage as a result of packing fruits in polyethylene bag after waxing was due tothe fact that it reduced the rate of transpiration of fruits; thereby the oxidative breakdown ofacids proceeded at a slower rate. This work was in consonance with the report of Bhullar andFarmahan (1980), Jagadeesh (1994) and Venkatesha (1991) in guava fruits.

Plate 7. Treated guava fruits eight days after storage

Plate 8. Treated guava fruits ten days after storage

* rotted guava fruits are thrown out after taking all observations

The maximum loss in acidity was recorded in control fruits owing to its very muchinteraction in the open air. This leads to increase in respiration rate rapidly, as a result ofwhich faster breakdown of organic acid takes place. This showed that control fruits werepoorer in retaining the organic acid during storage period. The same findings were supportedby Dhoot et al. (1984) and Garg et al. (1976) in guava fruits. In general the fruits wrapped intissue paper showed less acidity as compared to the fruits stored in perforated polyethylenebag during storage period, perhaps due to comparatively higher rate of respiration andchange in chemical composition. The same result was observed by Prasad (1985) inAlphonso mango fruits.

5.1.3 Organoleptic evaluationOrganoleptic evaluation of fruits is an important tool for deciding the consumer

acceptability. Human elements play an important role in evaluating organoleptic characters ofthe fruits. The consumer acceptability needs to be evaluated first at laboratory level. Hence inthe present investigation, 10 semi-trained panellists comprising of the teachers and postgraduate students of College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad wereinvolved in the evaluation processes of guava fruits.

The organoleptic assessment of the untreated guava fruits as compared to fruits withpost-harvest treatments like waxol and other chemical treatments and packaging material wasmade with respect to sensory traits like colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour andoverall acceptability.

The effects of various post-harvest treatments and packaging materials on theorganoleptic qualities of guava fruits were acceptable upto 6 days after storage and theymaintained acceptable colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overallacceptability.

The fruits having organoleptic scores of more than 3.0 were considered to beacceptable to eat. Organoleptic scores were found to be more than 3.0 even at the end of 10DAS with respect to colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overallacceptability in case of fruits packed in polyethylene bag after waxol treatment. Thus theoverall performance of guava fruits kept in polyethylene bag after waxol treatment were foundto be acceptable in maintaining good colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour andoverall acceptability even upto 10 days after storage. This may be attributed to the favourablestorage conditions maintained in these treatments. Similar favourable effects of waxing werereported by Garg et al. (1976), Bhullar and Farmahan (1980), Singh and Chauhan (1982) andPatel et al. (1993), Jagadeesh (1994) in guava fruits; Singh et al. (1988) in Kinnow mandarin;and Meena et al. (2009) in ber fruits.

Organoleptic scores were found to be more than 3.0 up to eight DAS with respect tocolour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overall acceptability in case ofunpacked waxol treated fruits. This showed that unpacked waxol treated fruits wereacceptable upto eight days. The positive role of waxing is due to the fact that, in addition tocontrolling the moisture loss, it also imparts glossiness to the fruits, thus increasingconsumers appeal, and reduces shrinkage by retarding moisture loss and thereby retainingfreshness of the fruits. Similar reports were reported by Pandey et al. (2010) and Patel et al.(1993) in guava fruits; Meena et al. (2009) in ber fruits; and Yadav et al. (2010) in Kinnowmandarin fruits.

Fruits wrapped in tissue paper also had a better score than control fruits. On the otherhand, untreated control fruits have shown poor colour taste and flavour at 4 days after storageitself. This may be due to higher of moisture and faster rate of decrease in sugars and acidity.Similar result was found by Singh et al. (1976) in guava fruits cv. Allahabad Safeda. Guavafruits treated with chemical compounds (KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and K2S2O5) wereacceptable upto four days, because they had organoleptic score more than 3.0 up to 4 DASwith respect to colour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overall acceptability.Although texture was firmer in the fruits treated with calcium compound, failure to preserve thecolour was common in fruits packed in polyethylene bags. Exogenous calcium incorporatedinto the protopectin molecules in the middle lamella retarded hydrolysis during post-harvestripening, inhibited fruit softening and thus helped in retaining the better texture. The abovestatement was supported by Jagadeesh (1994) in guava fruits; Dhillon et al. (1981) in pear

fruits; Roychoudhury et al. (1992) in litchi. Between two calcium compounds tried, calciumchloride was found to be superior in all aspects of organoleptic evaluation. Gupta et al. (1987)made similar observation in ber fruits. However, the sensory performance of calcium treatedfruits was not comparable to those fruits treated with waxol.

Organoleptic scores were found to be more than 3.0 up to 6 DAS with respect tocolour and appearance, texture, taste and flavour and overall acceptability in case ofuntreated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bags. This showed that unpacked waxoltreated fruits were acceptable upto six days. Thus, untreated fruits packed in polyethylene baghad better organoleptic quality than control and fruits wrapped with tissue paper. Similar resultwas found by Jawanda et. al. (1980) in ber fruits.

Untreated fruits packed in polyethylene bag had lower organoleptic scores than waxoltreated fruits in general. The reason for this may be the accumulation of excess water vapourin polyethylene bag storage atmosphere. Similar result was reported by Jagadeesh (1994) inguava fruits.

5.1.4 Shelf-lifeThe shelf-life of guava fruits were determined considering the wholesomeness of the

fruits, which was determined considering the organoleptic scores obtained by the fruits atdifferent stage of storage and also the physico-chemical parameters like shrinkage, loss inweight, sugar and acid content of the fruits. The shelf-life of guava fruits in all the treatmentswas found to be always higher than control. The lower shelf-life of control fruits were due toincreased rate of ripening, faster rate of increase of SI, PLW, TSS, sugars and fasterdegradation of acidity, besides control fruits also had least organoleptic scores. Longer shelf-life was observed in fruits packed in polyethylene bag after treatment with 25 per cent citruswax. This is due to the retardation of transpiration and respiration process in guava fruitsduring storage by waxol. The enhancement of shelf-life may be due to low physiologicalactivity, which is indicated by various physico-chemical parameters and retarded rate ofripening. The retarded rate of ripening is evidenced by lower and gradual decrease in acidityand slower increase in sugar, TSS and PLW of fruits. The above statement was supported byBhullar and Farmahan (1980), Patel et al. (1993), Pandey et al. (2010) in guava fruits;Singhrot et al. (1987) in lemon fruits; Baviskar et al. (1995) in ber fruits; and Jholgiker andReddy (2007) in Annona squamosa fruits.

Fruits treated with waxol were found to had longer shelf-life by three days ascompared to control. Wax emulsions forms a layer of thin coating on the surface of the fruit,thereby blocks the stomata cells and reduce the rate of respiration and transpiration, which isresponsible for increasing the shelf life of fruits. Similar reports were reported by Salinas-Hernandez et al. (2010), Pandey et al. (2010) and Patel et al. (1993) in guava fruits; Meena etal. (2009) in ber fruits; and Sharma and Ghuman (2009) and Yadav et al. (2010) in Kinnowmandarin fruits.

Fruits packed in polyethylene bag had longer shelf-life by two days as compared tothe fruits wrapped in tissue paper and control fruits. The enhancement of shelf-life of fruitspacked in polyethylene bag may be due to the modified atmosphere created within thepolyethylene bag (higher CO2 and lower O2) due to continuous respiration process of guavafruits and maintenance of high humidity inside the polyethylene bag which helps to maintainturgidity, more greenness and higher firmness during the storage. Similar results were foundby Khedkar et al. (1982), Venkatesha (1991) and Pratibha and Suman (2007) in guava fruits;Anon. (1970) in grape fruit; and Nikam and Wasker (1995) in sapota fruits.

Among the chemicals tried (KMnO4, Ca(NO3)2, CaCl2 and K2S2O5) to enhance theshelf-life of guava fruits packed in polyethylene bag, longer shelf life was recorded in fruitspacked in sealed polyethylene bag containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4.Potassium permanganate, as an ethylene absorbent has been found to delay the ripening byoxidising the released ethylene during ripening. As KMnO4 is a strong oxidising agent,neutralizes the action of ethylene during ripening (Wills et al., 1981). It is observed that fruitspacked in polyethylene bag had a shelf-life of 5 days, i.e. 1 day lower than that of fruitspacked in polyethylene bag containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4.

Plate 9. Guava cuttings at the time of planting

Plate 10. Guava cuttings one month after planting

Plate 11. Dhamini cuttings at the time of planting

Plate 12. Dhamini cuttings one month after planting

Thus, the combined effect of packaging in polyethylene bag and use of ethyleneoxidiser has helped in extending the shelf-life of guava fruits. Similar report were stated byDhoot et al. (1984), Dutta et al. (1991) and Jagadeesh (1994) in guava fruits; Banik et al.,(1988) and Pradeepgouda (1999) in sapota fruits; Patil (1996) in banana fruits; and Fageria etal. (2007) in ber fruits.

Adequate packaging and proper storage environment has profound influence on theshelf-life (storage life) of fruits. Good storage condition not only enhances the storage life, butalso helps to preserve the nutritive value, flavour and also protect against microbial infections.In the present investigation no pathogens were observed in guava fruits in any of thetreatments.

5.2 Studies on vegetative propagation of guava (Psidium guajavaL.) and dhamini (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.).Guava is a major fruit crop of India and it is fourth most important fruit crop in area

and production after mango, banana and citrus in India. Earlier guava was mainly propagatedby seed, but now it is restricted to raising of rootstock plants. Now-a-days guava can bepropagated by several vegetative means such as, air layers, grafting and also by tissueculture to some extent. But guava propagation is commercialised by air-layering. Therefore,an attempt was made to propagate guava by cuttings, because it is cheap and easy methodamong all methods of vegetative propagation. In the present study no rooting was observed inthe cuttings treated with NAA and IBA at different concentrations and combinations, as thesoft wood cuttings dried within a month. This might be attributed to desiccation of cuttingscaused by high temperature developed inside the poly tunnel. The planting medium i.e. sandalso gets heated very easily than any other medium. The high temperature of sand may beresponsible for drying of cuttings. Early sprouting took place using little stored food materialsin soft wood cuttings, thus reducing the amount of stored food available to the rooting ofcuttings.

Dhamini is an unexploited minor forest fruit crop and it is mainly propagated by seedsin forest itself. Its seed have very low viability period and have low germination percentagebesides dhamini is cross pollinated and is highly heterozygous plant. Hence, it is necessary toproduce true to type dhamini plant of desirable character and true to type plant produce onlyby vegetative propagation method. Dhamini belongs to the tiliaceae family which also includePhalsa (Grewia asiatica L.); phalsa is a shrub and commercially propagated by cuttings withthe help of plant growth regulators (NAA and IBA). So an attempt was made to propagatedhamini through cuttings. Even after treatment with proven rooting growth regulators (NAAand IBA) at different concentrations and combinations no rooting in the soft wood cuttings wasobserved in any of the treatments, indicating that the concentrations tried were inadequate topromote the rooting in soft wood cuttings, possibly due to, inherent character and biochemicalcomposition of dhamini. Further the reason given for failure of soft wood guava cuttings mayalso be attributed to the failure of rooting in soft wood dhamini cuttings.

Future line of work

1. The post-harvest treatments tried under ambient condition in case of guava fruits,may be evaluated under ZECC (Zero Energy Cool Chamber) for further extendingshelf-life.

2. Different concentrations of IBA and NAA in different combinations may be tried forinducing rooting of cuttings in dhamini and guava under mist poly house.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The present investigation with an objective to extend shelf-life of guava fruits cv. Sardar was carried out at the Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad during the year 2010 - 2011. The treatments comprised of post-harvest treatments with waxol (17 and 25 % nipro and citrus wax), potassium permanganate impregnated paper shreds, calcium nitrate (1%), calcium chloride (2%), potassium metabisulphite (1000 ppm) and storage in polyethylene bag with or without vents under ambient storage condition. A set of untreated fruits without any packaging (control), untreated fruits packed in perforated polyethylene bag and untreated fruits wrapped with tissue paper were also maintained. The observations on physico-chemical parameters, organoleptic characters and shelf-life were recorded. The important findings are summarised hereunder :

Post-harvest treatment of guava fruits with 25 per cent citrus wax and packing in polyethylene bag (200 gauge having 1% area of vents) and stored under ambient conditions, was found to significantly reduce the shrinkage index (5.40%) and physiological loss in weight (5.97%) as against the control (13.66% and 24.88% respectively) at 10 days after storage. The above treatment was found to retain higher total soluble solids (9.73%), reducing sugars (4.12%), non-reducing sugars (1.83%), total sugars (5.95%), ascorbic acid (196.22 mg/100 g of fruit) and total titratable acidity (0.581%), than rest of the treatments at 10 days after storage. These treated fruits had a shelf-life of 8.21 as compared to 2.05 days in control and also had higher mean organoleptic scores for colour and appearance (4.28), texture (4.30), taste and flavour (4.38), overall acceptability (4.31). The next best treatment was treating fruits with 17 per cent citrus wax plus packing in polyethylene bag with vents which had a shelf-life of about 7.46 days and had higher organoleptic scores for colour and appearance (4.08), texture (4.17), taste and flavour (4.26), overall acceptability (4.17). The next best treatment was treating fruits with 25 per cent nipro wax and packing in polyethylene bags which had a shelf life of 7.42 and a mean overall acceptability score of 3.99.

The waxol (nipro and citrus wax) treated fruits without packaging i.e. kept in open condition were found to have a shelf-life of 5.22 to 5.67 days. Among these waxol treatments, the fruits treated with 17 per cent nipro wax had lower shrinkage index (9.48%) and physiological loss in weight (10.56%) at 10 DAS. But fruits treated with 25 per cent citrus wax were found to have higher reducing sugars (3.62%), non-reducing sugars (1.45%), total sugars (5.08%), ascorbic acid (165.79 mg/100 g of fruit) and total titratable acidity (0.444%) at 10 days after storage. The mean organoleptic scores for overall acceptability ranged from 3.29 to 3.60 in the fruits treated with nipro and citrus wax at 25 and 17 percent without packaging.

Among the fruits treated with different chemical compounds, fruits kept in polyethylene bag of 200 guage with 0.5 per cent vents containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4 were found to have a shelf-life of 4.66 days followed by 4.36 days in fruits treated with 2% CaCl2 solution, 4.25 days in 1% Ca(NO3)2 solution and 3.12 days in 1000 ppm K2S2O5 solution as compared to 2.05 days in control. The mean organoleptic scores with respect to overall acceptability were found to be higher in the fruits kept in polyethylene bag of 200 guage with 0.5 per cent vents containing paper shreds impregnated with KMnO4 (2.83) followed by the fruits treated with 2% CaCl2 solution (2.80), in 1% Ca(NO3)2 solution (2.67) and in 1000 ppm K2S2O5 solution (2.46).

Among the packaging materials used, polyethylene bag was found to be effective in retaining the physico-chemical characteristics of untreated fruits during storage as compared to the untreated fruits wrapped with tissue paper. The fruits packed in polyethylene bags had a shelf-life of 4.66 days as compared to 2.05 days in control fruits. These fruits had a mean organoleptic score of 3.12 with respect to overall acceptability.

Among two wax emulsions (nipro and citrus wax) tried at two concentrations (17 and 25 %) it was found that fruits treated with citrus wax at 25 per cent concentration and stored in ventilated polyethylene bags were better with a shelf-life of 8.21 days as compared to fruits treated with nipro wax at 25 per cent concentration with a shelf-life of 7.42 days. Fruits treated with17 per cent citrus wax concentration and stored in ventilated polyethylene bags had a shelf-life of 7.47 days.

Similarly in case of fruits kept in open ambient condition (without polyethylene packaging) treated with citrus wax had higher shelf-life of 5.67 days as compared to nipro wax at 25 per cent concentration (5.42 days).

No rooting was observed in the guava and dhamini cuttings treated with NAA and IBA at different concentrations and combinations and kept in poly tunnels, as the soft wood cuttings dried within a month.

Conclusion

The shelf-life of guava fruits could be extended by 6.16 days by packing the fruits in polyethylene bags with one per cent vent after treatment with 25 per cent citrus wax with a mean organoleptic score of 4.28 (colour and appearance), 4.30 (texture), 4.38 (taste and flavour) and 4.31 (overall aceeptability). The guava fruits in this treatment recorded reduced rate of shrinkage index and physiological loss in weight and found to retain higher total soluble solids, reducing sugars, non-reducing sugars, total sugars, ascorbic acid and total titratable acidity. The next best treatment was treating guava fruits with 17 per cent citrus wax and packing in polyethylene bag of one per cent vent which extended the shelf-life by 5.41 days.

REFERENCES

Abdullah, A. T. M., Hossain, M. A. and Bhuiyan, M. K., 2006, Clonal propagation of guava ( Psidium guajava L.) by stem cutting from mature stockplants. J. Forest. Res., 17 (4) : 301-304.

Agnihotri, B. N. and Ram, H. B. A., 1971, Comparative study of skin coating and smoking treatment on ripening and storage behaviour of banana (Musa cavendish cv. Basrai). Prog. Hort., 24 : 59-65.

Ahlawat, V. P., Yamdagni, R. and Jibdal, P. C., 1980, Studies on the effect of post-harvest treatment on the storage behaviour of guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Sardar (L-49). Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 10 : 242-247.

*Al-Obeed, R. S., 2000, The effect of growth regulators, phenolic compounds and time of propagation on the rooting of guava stem cuttings. Alexandria J. Agric. Res., 45 (2) : 189-199.

Amen, K. I. A., 1987, Effect of post-harvest calcium treatments on the storage life of guava fruits. Assiut J. Agric. Sci., 18 (4) : 127-137.

*Anandaswamy, B., Iyengar, N. V. R., Srivastava, H. C. and Subramanyan, V., 1962, Researches on packaging and transportation of perishables in India. In : First International Congress of food science and technology, Vol. IV, Gorden and Breach Science Publishers, London, pp. 391.

Anonymous, 1960, Official Methods of Analysis. Association Official Analytical Chemists, Washington D. C., 9

th Edition.

Anonymous, 1970, Project Report. Central Food Technological Research Institute, Mysore, pp. 194.

*Anonymous, 1984, Official Method of Analysis. Ed. Sidney Williams, Association Official Analytical Virginia, 14

th Edition, pp. 424-462.

Arora, R. K. and Yamadagni, R., 1985, Effect of growth regulators on rooting of lemon cuttings with and without leaves. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 15 (1) : 77-81.

*Aworh, O. C., Nwankwo, C. F. and Olorunda, A. O., 1991, Control of post harvest losses in fruits under tropical condition : Effect of wax and fungicide. Tropic Sci., 31 (2) : 177-182.

Banik, D., Hore, J. K. and Sen, S. K., 1988, Studies on storage of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lank). Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 17 (1-2) : 49-55.

Banik, D., Duha, R S., Gosh, S. K. and Sen, S. K., 1988, Studies on extension of storage life of sapota (Achras sapota L.). Indian J. Hort., 45 : 241-248.

*Bantash, V. G. and Arasimovich, V. V., 1989, Characteristics of pectin complex in apple fruits treated with calcium chloride. Izvestiya Akademii Nauk Moldavskoi SSr, Seriya Biologicheskikh Kimicheskikh Nauk, No. 5 : 23-26 (Russian).

Baviskar, M. R., Waskar, D. P. and Kaulgud, S. N., 1995, Effect of various post-harvest treatments on shelf-life and quality of ber fruits. India J. Hort., 52 (1) : 37-45.

Bhagat, B. K., Jain, B. P. and Singh, C., 1998, Growth substances and survival of hardwood cuttings of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Journal of Research, 10 : 121-123.

Bhullar, J.S. and Farmahan, H.L., 1980, Studies on the ripening and storage behaviour of Safeda guava (Psidium guajava L.). Indian Fd. Packer, 34 (4) : 5-7.

Bhullar, J.S., Farmahan, H.L. and Agnihotri, R. P., 1981, Studies on storage behaviour and extending the shelf life of Kinnow mandarins. Prog. Hort., 13 (3-4) : 115-119.

*Brown, B. I., 1983, Post-harvest studies on guava. Australian Hort. Res. Newsletter, No. 55 : 152-153.

Chadha, K. L., 1994, Strategy for optimization of productivity and utilization of sapota (Manilkara achras Mill.). India J. Hort. 49 : 1-17.

Chadha, K. L. and Pareek, O. P., 1993b, Post-harvest losses in fruits. In : Advances in Horticulture, 4 : 1795-1811.

Chattopadhyay, P. K., 1989, Studies on shelf life of mango following treatment with chemicals and cooling. Hort. Sci., 20 (1) : 12-15.

Dalal, V. B., Eipeson, W. E. and Singh, M. S., 1971, Wax emulsion for fresh fruits and vegetables to extend their shelf life. Indian Fd. Packer, 25 : 9-15.

Debnath, G. C. and Maiti, S. C., 1990, Effect of growth regulators on rooting of soft wood cutting of guava (Psidium guajava L.) under mist. Harayana J. Hort. Sci., 19 (1-2) : 79-85.

Desai, B. B., Shukla, A. D. and Chougule, B. A., 1989, Biochemical changes during storage of chemical treated banana fruits. J. Maharashtra Agric. univ., 14 (1) : 47-48.

Dhawan, S. S., Kainsa, R. L. and Gupta, O. P., 1983, Screening of guava cultivars for wine and brandy making. Haryana Agric. Univ. J. Res., 13 (3) : 420-423.

Dhillon, B. S., Bhullar, J. S. and Randhawa, J. S., 1981, Role of wrappers and post-harvest application of gibberellic acid, cycocel and calcium chloride in the storage behaviour of subtropical pear. J. Res. Punjab Agric. Univ., 18 (2) : 149-156.

Dhoot, L. R , Desai,U. T. and Rane, D. A., 1984, Studies on shelf-life of Guava fruits with polythene packaging and chemical treatments. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 9 (21) : 185-188.

Drake, S. R. and Spayd, S. E., 1983, Influence of calcium treatment on ‘Golden Delicious’ apple quality. J. Food Sci., 48 (2) : 403-405.

Dutta, P., Bank, A. K., Raychaudhury, R. and Dhua, R. S., 1991, Influence of ethylene absorbents on shelf-life of guava fruits. Indian J. Hort., 48 (3) : 213-216.

Dutta, S. C., Sarkar, K. P. and Bose, A. N., 1960, Storage of mandrine oranges. Indian J. Hort., 17 : 60-68.

Fageria, M. S., Lal, G., Dhaka, R. S. and Choudhary, M. R., 2007, Studies on post-harvest management of ber cv. Umran. Indian J. Hort., 64 (4) : 469-471.

*Frey, B., Hagedorn, F. and Gludici, F., 2006. Effect of girdling on soil respiration and root composition in sweet chestnut forest. For. Ecol. Manage., 225 (1-3) : 271-277.

Garg, R. C. and Ram, H. B., 1973, A note on the effect of wax emulsion treatment on mango cv. Lucknow Safeda. Prog. Hort., 5 (1) : 35-39.

Garg, R. C., Ram, H. B. and Singh, S. K., 1976, A note on the effect of post-harvest treatment with Indole butyric acid and wax emulsion on storage behaviour of guavas (Psidium guajava L.). Prog. Hort., 8 (4) : 85-88.

Garg, R. C., Srivastava, R. K. and Ram, H. M., 1971, Role of prepackaging and skin coating on the storage behaviour of mango cv. Dashehari. Prog. Hort., 3 (2) : 49-69.

Ghosh, D., Dandyopadhyay, A., and Sen, S. K., 1988, Effect of NAA and IBA on adventitious root formation in stem cuttings of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) under intermittent mist. India Agriculturist, 32 : 139-243.

Goutam, M., Dhaliwal, H. S. and Mahajan, B. V. C., 2010, Effect of pre-harvest calcium Sprays on post-harvest Life of Winter Guava (Psidium guajava L.). J. Food Sci. Technol., 47 (5) : 501-506.

Gupta, O. P., Siddiqui, S. and Chauhan, K. S., 1987, Evaluation of various calcium compounds for increasing the shelf-life of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lamk.) fruits. Indian J. Agric. Res., 21 (2) : 65-70.

Habeebunnisa, 1971, Effect of skin coating and pre packaging on storage behaviour of guava. Indian Fd. Packer, 25 (3) : 45-50.

Hore, J. K. and Sen, S. K., 1991, Propagation of sapota (Achras sapota L.) by stem cuttings. Indian Agriculturist, 36 : 101-105.

Jagadeesh, S. L., 1994, Studies on storage of guava of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, (India).

Jain, R. N., Chitkara, S. D. and Chauhan, K. S., 1981, Studies on physico-chemical characters of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lank) fruits cv. Umran in cold storage. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 10 : 141-146.

Jain, R. N., Chitkara, S. D. and Singh, K., 1979, Effect of various post-harvest treatments on storage of Umran cultivar of ber. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 8 : 181-185.

Jauhari, O. S., 1970, Some promising guava varieties. Indian Hort., 15 (3) : 16-17.

Jawanda, J. S., Bal, J. S., Josan, J. S. and Mann, S. S., 1980, Studies on storage of ber fruits I. Room temperature. Punjab Hort. J., 20 (1-2) : 56-61.

Jholgiker, P. and Reddy, B. S., 2007, Effect of different surface coating material on post harvest physiology of Annona squamosa L. fruits under ambient and zero energy cool chamber storage. Indian J. Hort., 64 (1) : 41-44.

Karibasappa, G. S. and Gupta, P. N., 1988, Storage studies in Khasi mandarins. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 17 (3-4) : 196-200.

*Kariyanna, K. M., Bojappa and Reddy, T. V., 1993, Influence of some harvesr treatments on ripening and quality of sapota fruits. Golden Jubilee Symp., Bangalore, Abstract, pp. 360.

Kaushal, B. B. L. and Thakur, K. S., 1996, Influence of ambient and evaporative cool chamber storage conditions on the quality of polyethylene-packed Kinnow fruits. Advances in Horticultural Sciences, 10 : 179-184.

Khedkar, D. M., Ansarwadkar, K. W., Dabhade, R. S. and Ballal, A. L., 1982, Extension of storage life of Guava var. L-49. Indian Fd. Packer, 18 (3) : 49-52.

*Kore, V. N. and Sharma, P., 1990, Effect of containers on storage of ber (Zizyphus mauritiana Lank) fruits at room temperature. Abstract of the International Seminar on New Frontiers in Horticulture held at Bangalore on Nov. 25, 1990.

Kumar, S. and Chauhan, K. S., 1990, Effect of fungicides and calcium compounds on shelf-life of Kinnow mandarin during low temperature storage. Haryana J. Hort Sci., 19 (1-2) : 112-121.

Kumar, S., Kumar, A., Baig, M. J. and Chaubey, B. K., 2005, Effect of calcium on physico-chemical changes in aonla (Emblica officinalis Gaertn). Indian J. Hort., 62 (4) : 324-326.

Laxman Kuknoor, 1996, Storage studies in mango fruits. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sciences, Dharwad, (India).

Larreal, N. M. and Peres, E. N., 1978, A study of three packing methods for green plantain storage. Reviata De La Faculatede Agronomica Unversidal Zulia, 4 : 185-219.

*Li, Y. R., Yang, L. T. and MO, J. R., 1991, The effect of complex preservative on maintenance of freshness in banana and some biochemical characters of pericarp. Acta Horti Sinica, 18 : 39-43.

Madhav Rao, D. and Ramarao, V., 1979, Post-harvest changes in banana cv. Robusta. Indian J. Hort., 36 : 387-393.

Manan, A., Aslamkhan, M., Ahmad, M. and Sattar, A., 2000, Clonal Propagation of Guava (Psidium guajava L.). International J. Agric. Bio., 4 (1) : 143-144.

Mani, S. B., Lal, B. B. and Anand, J. C., 1993, Fruit packaging, In : Advances in Horticulture, Vol. IV. (eds. Chadha, K. L. and Pareek, O. P.), Malhotra Publishing House, New Delhi, pp. 1775-1793.

*Mapson, L. W., 1970, Vitamins in fruits : Stability of L-ascorbic acid. In : Biochemistry of fruits and their products Vol. I (ed. Hulme, A. C.), Academic Press, London, pp. 376-377.

Masoodi, F. A. and Mir, M. A., 1995, Studies on storage of William pear. Indian J. Hort., 52 (3) : 182-185.

Meena, H. R., Kingsly, A. R. P. and Jain, R. K., 2009, Effect of post-harvest treatments on shelf-life of ber fruits. Indian J. Hort., 66 (1) : 58-61.

Miller, G. L., 1972, Use of Dinitro-salicylic acid reagent for determination of reducing sugar. Ann. Chem., 31: 426-428.

Mohammed, M., 1993, Quality changes in ‘Lacatan’ and ‘Gros Michel’ bananas stored in sealed polyethylene bags with ethylene absorbent. In : XXXIX Annual meeting of the inter-american society for tropical horticulture, held at Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, 22-27 Aug., pp. 67-72.

Muthuswamy, S., Sadasivam, R., Sundaraj, J. S. and Vasudaven, V., 1971, Storage studies on Dwarf Cavendish bananas. Indian J. Agri. Sci., 41 : 479-484.

*Neal, G. E. and Hulme, A. C., 1958, The organic acid metabolism of Branmley’s seedling apple peel. J. Expt. Bot., 14 : 453-459.

*Nikam, S. K. and Wasker, D. P., 1995, Studies on extending the shelf-life of sapota fruits by using various packaging materials under different storage environment. Nat. Sem. Hort. Nat. 95, Trivendrum, pp. 41.

Pandey, G. and Singh, B. P., 2007, Comparative response of 1-methylcyclopropene and KMnO4 on post-harvest behaviour of mango. Indian J. Hort., 64 (2) : 123-126.

Pandey, S. K. and Bisen, A., 2010, Effect of mechanical treatments on rooting in cuttings of

guava, lemon and pomegranate. J. Hort. Forest., 2 (5) : 95-98.

Pandey, S. K., Joshua, J. E. and Bisen, A., 2010, Influence of gamma-irradiation, growth retardants and coatings on the shelf-life of winter guava fruits (Psidium guajava L.). J. Food Sci. Technol., 47 (1) : 124-127.

*Panse, V. S. and Sukhatme, P. V., 1985, Statistical Methods for Agricultural Workers. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi, pp. 152-155.

*Parkin, R. and Scott, K. J., 1979, Banana bunches stored without refrigeration. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 90 : 52.

Passam, H. C. 1982, Storage of some local and introduced mango cultivars grown in Trinidad. Scientia Hortculturae, 16 (2) : 171-177.

Patel, A. B., Patel, B. I. and Katrodia, J. S., 1993, Extension of storage life of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Indian Fd. Packer, 48 (1) : 5-10.

Patil, S. N., 1996, Effect of post-harvest treatments on storage physiology of banana cv. Robusta. M. Sc. (Agri) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sc., Dharwad, (India).

Phandis, N. A., 1970, Improvement of guava (Psidium guajava L.) by selection in Maharashtra. Indian J. Hort., 27 : 99-105.

Pillai, K. S. and Balakrishnan, S., 1978, Effect of wax emulsion and fungicides on the shelf-life of certain fruits and vegetables. Agric. Res. J. Kerala, 16 (1) : 108-109.

Pradeepgouda, 1999, Effect of storage condition and post-harvest treatments on shelf-life and quality of sapota (Manilkara achras (Mill.) Fosberg) cv. Kalipatti. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, (India).

Prasad, S. V., 1985, Studies on packaging of mango (Mangifera indica L.). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sc., Bangalore, (India).

Pratibha, P. and and Suman, K., 2007, Shelf-life studies on guava fruits under different packaging materials. Indian J. of Agri. Bio., 20 (1) : 9-12.

Proebsting, W. M., 1984, Rooting of douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) stem cuttings : Relative activity of IBA and NAA. Hort. Sci., 19 : 854-856.

Rahman, N. A., Yaqing, W. and Thompson, A. K., 1995, Temperature and modified atmosphere packaging effect on the ripening of banana. In : Harvest and post-harvest technologies for fresh fruits and vegetables. Proceedings of a conference held at Guanajuato, Mexico, 20-24.

Rajarama, H. A., 1997, Studies on propagation of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.) by cuttings. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sciences, Bangalore, (India).

Ramkrishna, M. and Ram Rao, M., 1989, Post-harvest changes in sapota under different storage treatment. The Andhra Agric. J., 36 : 166.

Rao, D. V. R. and Chundawat, B. S., 1986, Effect of certain chemicals retardants on ripening changes of banana cv. Lacatan at ambient temperatures. Prog. Hort., 18 : 189-195.

Rao, D. V. R. and Chundawat, B. S., 1987, Effect of certain ethylene absorbent on storage behaviour of Basarai banana. Gujarat Agri. Univ. J., 12 : 4-10.

Rao, D. V. R. and Chundawat, B. S., 1991, Chemical regulation in ripening in banana bunches cv. Lacatan in a non-refrigerated atmosphere. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 26 : 6-11.

Rath, S., and Pattnaik, A. K., 1989, Effect of post-harvest application of 2-chloroethyl phosphonic acid (Ethrel) on degreening of Kagzilime in Phulbani district of Orissa. Orissa J. Hort., 17 (1-2) : 61-68.

Reddy, K. V. R., C. P and Goud, P. V., 2008, Role of auxin synergists in the rooting of hard-wood and semi hard-wood cuttings of fig (Ficus carica l.). Indian J. Agric. Res., 42 (1) : 47-51.

Reddy, N. P., 1992, Effect of transportation, packages and chemicals treatment on the physio-chemical changes and shelf-life of guava (Psidium guajava) cv. Allahabad Safeda. Ph. D. Thesis, Rajasthan Agric. Univ., Udaipur, (India).

Roy, B. N., Saha, S. K., Paramanick, S. and Biswas, S., 1980, Effect of wax emulsion and maleic hydrazide on the storage behaviour of mango cv. Langra and Himsagar. Prog. Hort., 11 (4) : 35-38.

Roy, S. K., 1900, Packaging and storage of horticultural crops in India. In : Proceedings of XI International Congress – The use of plastics in Agriculture, Oxford and IBH publication Co. Ltd., New Delhi, pp. D21 – D22.

Roychoudhry, R., Kabir, J., Dutta, S. K. and Dhua, R. S., 1992, Effect of calcium on fruit quality of litchi. Indian J. Hort., 49 (1) : 27-30.

*Sadashivam, R., Subramanian, T. M. and Raman, N. V., 1972, Polyethylene packages ensure better package of Sathgudi fruits. Indian Fmg., 22 (1) : 32-37.

Salaria, A. and Salaria, B. S., 2010, Facts and figure of Indian horticulture. In : Fruit and plantation crops. pp. I.

Salinas-Hernandez, R.M., Ulin-Montejo, F. and Saucedo-Veloz, C., 2010, Effect of Waxing and Temperature of Storage on the Conservation of Guava (Psidium guajava L.) cv. Media China. Acta Hort., 849.

*Salunkhe, D. K., 1985, A lecture presented on : Post-harvest technology of fruits and vegetables. Fourth Workshop on all India coordinated research project on post-harvest technology of horticultural crops, held at Haryana Agriculture University, Hissar, 8-10.

*Salunkhe, D. K. and Desai, B. B., 1984, Post Harvest biology of Fruits, Vol. II, CRC Press, Florida, U. S. A.

Salunkhe, D. K., Do, J. Y. and Bolin, H. R., 1976, Developments in technology and nutritive value of dehydrated fruits, vegetables and their products. In : Storage, Processing and Nutritional quality of fruits and vegetables (eds. Salunkhe, D. K. and Haard, N. A.), CRC Press, Cleveland, Ohio, pp. 39-72.

Salunkhe, D. K., Copper, G. M., Dhaliwal, A. S., Boe, A. A. and Rivers, A. L., 1962, Effect of pre and post harvest treatments in storage of fruits. Fd. Tech., 16 : 119.

Sanjay, G., 1996, Effect of post-harvest treatments on keeping quality of sapota (Manilkara achras (Mill.) Fosberg) cv. Kalipatti, fruits. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, (India).

Saranda, K. H., 1989, Responces of Embul banana (Musa spp.) to modified atmosphere storage. Tropical Agriculturist, 145 : 113-119.

Sarkar, H. N., Hassan, M. A. and Chattopadhyaya, P. K., 1995, Studies on shelf-life of banana as influenced by chemicals. J. Trop. Agri., 33 : 97-100.

Sarkar, H. N., Hassan, M. A. and Chattopadhyaya, P. K., 1997, Influence of polyethylene packing on the post-harvest storage behaviour of banana fruits. The Hort. J., 10 : 31-39.

Satyan, S., Soch, K. J. and Graham, D., 1992, Storage of banana bunches in sealed polyethylene tubes. J. Hort. Sci., 67 : 283-287.

Scott, K. J., 1975, The use of polyethylene bags to extend the life of bananas after harvest. Food Technol. 27 : 481-482.

Scott, K. J. and Gandanegara, S., 1974, Effect of temperature on the storage life of bananas held in polyethylene bags with ethylene absorbent. Trop. Agric., 55 : 23-26.

*Scott, K. J., McGalsson, W. B. and Robert, E. A., 1968, Ethylene absorbent increases storage life of banana packed in poly bags. Agricultural Gazette of New South Wales, 79 : 52.

Scott, K. J., Blake, J. R. Strachan, G., Tugwell, B. L. and McGlasson, W. B., 1971, Transport of Banana at ambient temperature in polyethylene bags. Trop. Agric. (Trinidad), 48 : 245-254.

Sharma, A. and Ghuman, B. S., 2009, Evaluation of on-farm waxing and grading prototype for fresh kinnow fruits. Indian J. Hort., 66 (2) : 288-290.

Sharma, G. D., Pillai, K. C. R. and Kapur, N. S., 1965, Role of skin coating on the transpiration of perishable fruits : III Studies on the transportation of mango. Indian Fd. Packer, 19 : 14-16.

Sharma, K. K., 1975, Effect of IBA on rooting of cutting of guava (Psidium guajava L.). Punjab Hort. J., 15 (1-2) : 46-47.

Sharma, R. K., Kumar, J. and Pal, V., 2007, Effect of polythene and natural plant extracts on shelf life of Kinnow. Indian J. Hort., 64 (1) : 87-89.

Sharma, R. K., Kumar, J. and Singh, R., 1991, Shelf life of grapes as affected by various packing material and chemicals. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 20 (1-2) : 39-43.

*Sheikh, C. A., Ali, S. S. and Haque, M. Y. I., 1977, Preservation of mangoes with fungicidal wax emulsion. Pakistan J. Sci. Ind. Res., 20 : 198-200.

Shivaramareddy, L. and Thimmaraju, K. L., 1989, Effect of pre-packaging and post-harvest treatments on the storage behaviour of mango fruits cv. Alphonso. Acta Hort., 231 : 670-674.

Singh, B. P., Singh, S. K. and Chauhan, K. S., 1981, Effect of post-harvest calcium treatments on storage life of guava fruits. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 51 (1) : 47-49.

Singh, G., 1988, Effect of calcium nitrate and plant growth regulators on the storage of Allahabad Safeda guava. Indian J. Hort., 45 (1-2) : 45-50.

Singh, K. and Chauhan, K. S., 1982, Effect of certain post-harvest treatments on storage life of cv. L- 49 of guava. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 11 (3-4) : 163-167.

Singh, K., Mann, S. S. and Mohan, C., 1988, Effect of fungicides and wax emulsion on storage of Kinnow mandarin at ambient storage condition. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 17 (1-2) : 14-19.

Singh, R., Chaturvedi, O.P., Gaur, G.S. and Singh, G., 2007, Effect of pre-harvest spray of zinc, calcium and boron on the storage behaviour of guava (Psidium guajava L.) fruits cv. Allahabad Safeda. Acta Hort., 735.

Singh, R. N., Singh, G. and Mishra J. S., 1987, Studies on the effect of pre and post harvest treatment of calcium nitrate and calcium chloride on storage life of Amprapali mango. Prog. Hort., 19 (1-2) : 1-9.

Singh, S., Brahmachari, V. S. and Jha, K. K., 1998, Effect of calcium and polythene wrapping on storage life of mango. Indian J. Hort., 55 (3) : 218-222.

Singh, U. R., Pandey, I. C., Tripathi, B. M., and Shukla, B., 1976, Effect of different packaging material, containers and transportation on guava fruits. Punjb Hort. J., 16 (3/4) : 149-152.

Singhrot, R. S., Sharma, R. K., Sandooja, J. K. and Singh, J. P., 1987, Effect of some chemicals to enhance shelf life of Baramasi lemon. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 16 (1-2) : 25-30.

Somashekhar, B.S., 1988, Studies on rooting of phalsa (Grewia asiatica L.) cuttings. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Bangalore, (India).

Srivastava, H. C., 1962, Storage behavior of skin coated guava (Psidium guajava) under modified atmosphere. Food sci., 11 : 252.

Tan, S. C. and Mohamed, A. A., 1990, The effect of CO2 on phenolic compounds during the storage of ‘Mas’ banana in polybags. Acta Hort., 269 : 389.

Tandon, D. K., Adsule, P. G. and Kalra, S. K., 1984, Effect of certain post-harvest treatments on the shelf-life of guava fruits. India J. Hort. Sci. 41 (1/2) : 88-92.

*Tavares, M. S. W., Kersten, E. and Siewerdt, F., 1995, Effects of indolebutiric acid and of collection date on the rooting of guava cuttings (Psidium guajava L.). Sci. Agric., 52 (2).

*Tomkins, R. G., 1962, Change in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide and Oxygen produced in plastic containers by pre-packed fruits and vegetables. In : First International Congress of food science and technology, Vol. IV, Gorden and Breach Science Publishers, London, pp. 423.

Venkatesha, M., 1991, Use of polyethylene bags to extend the shelf-life of guava and coccinia. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad, (India).

*Wild, B. L., 1981, The effect of waxing on citrus fruits. Rural Newsletter, 79 : 14-19.

Wild, B. L. and Scott, K. J., 1983, Storage of limes. Australian Hort. Newsletter, 55 : 123.

*Wills, R. B. H., Lee, T. H., Graham, D., McGlasson, W. B. and Hall, J. G., 1981, In : Introduction to post-harvest physiology and handling of fruits and vegetables. AVI Publishing Co. Inc., West Port, Connecticut, U. S. A., pp.61.

*Wilson, C. W., 1980, Guava, In : Tropical and subtropical fruits. (eds. S. Nagy and P. E. Shaw). AVI, Westport, Conn. pp. 279-299.

Yadav, M., Kumar, N., Singh, D. B. and Singh, G. K., 2010, Effect of post-harvest treatments ob shelf-life and quality of Kinnow mandarin. Indian J. Hort., 67 (2) : 11-15.

*Zietemann, C. and Roberto, S. R., 2007, Effect of different substrates and collection seasons on the herbaceous cuttings rooting of guava, cv. Paluma and Seculo XXI. Rev. Bras. Frutic., 29 (1).

*Zinca, L. F. and Brune, W., 1973, The effect of polyethylene wrapping on the conservation and ripening of banana cv. Pratia. Experimentae, 16 : 43-59.

*original not seen

APPENDIX I

Monthly meteorological data for the experimental year 2010-2011 and the average of 60 years (1950-2009) at Meteorological Observatory, Main Agricultural Research Station,

College of Agriculture, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Rainfall (mm) Temperature (oC)

Relative humidity (%)

Mean maximum

Mean minimum

Months

2010

Mean of

1950-2009 2010

Mean of

1950-2009

2010

Mean of

1950-2009

2010

Mean

of

1950-2009

January 0.8 0.062 29.67 28.2 15.4 14.07 63 64.81

February 0.4 0.547 32.20 32.4 17.3 16.56 50 54.41

March Trace 15.65 33.73 35.6 20.3 19.71 49 64.24

April 43.8 39.27 36.00 37.6 22.0 20.11 55 78.05

May 63.1 68.39 34.41 35.7 22.4 20.95 63 75.78

June 63.4 108.51 28.77 31.2 21.8 21.68 75 86.29

July 155.0 138.70 28.64 27.7 20.8 20.85 84 89.18

August 190.7 154.45 26.92 27.9 20.7 20.16 84 88.60

September 164.9 135.23 28.15 27.9 20.2 19.96 83 86.68

October 177.0 94.43 30.13 29.0 19.5 18.65 77 79.40

November 92.8 52.49 29.67 28.4 19.0 15.93 79 73.62

December 0.6 2.83 28.94 27.4 14.1 13.18 65 69.24

Total 952.5 810.55

STUDIES ON EXTENSION OF SHELF-LIFE OF GUAVA (Psidium guajava L.) FRUITS AND VEGETATIVE

PROPAGATION OF GUAVA AND DHAMINI (Grewia tiliaefolia Vahl.)

DEEPAK PATEL 2011 Dr. J. C. MATHAD MAJOR ADVISOR

ABSTRACT

An investigation was carried out to study the influence of post-harvest treatments with waxol (17 and 25 % nipro and citrus wax), potassium permanganate impregnated on paper shreds, potassium metabisulphite (1000 ppm) and calcium compounds (1% calcium nitrate and 2% calcium chloride) coupled with packaging in polyethylene bags of 200 gauge with 1 percent vents or wrapped with tissue paper on physico-chemical parameters, organoleptic characters and shelf-life of Sardar guava fruits under ambient conditions.

The guava fruits treated with 25 per cent citrus wax and packed in polyethylene bag (200 gauge having 1% area of vents) and stored under ambient conditions had a shelf-life of 8.21 days, with lowest shrinkage index (3.00%), physiological loss in weight (3.99%) and retained highest total soluble solids (10.22%), reducing sugars (4.10%), non-reducing sugars (2.12%), total sugars (6.22%), ascorbic acid (213.37 mg/100 g of fruit) and total titratable acidity (0.665%) among the 15 treatments throughout the storage period of 10 days. Organoleptic scores for colour and appearance (4.28), texture (4.30), taste and flavour (4.38), overall acceptability (4.31) was also found to be highest in this treatment. The fruits treated with citrus wax (17%) and packed in polyethylene bag with vents had a shelf-life of 7.46 days followed by 7.42 days in fruits treated with nipro wax (25%) and packed in polyethylene bags with vents.

No rooting was observed in guava and dhamini soft-wood cuttings treated with IBA and NAA at the rate 1000 to 3000 ppm concentrations even under poly tunnel condition.

studies on extension of shelf-life of guava ( psidium ... · contains a number of useful plants...

Documents